Talk:Community health initiative/Metrics kit

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback on metrics[edit]

Overall size[edit]

One of the longest running metrics on the English Language Wikipedia is time between ten million edits. Which I seem to have adopted in the last year or so. This has all the advantages and disadvantages of a metric that looks at very raw data - like other metrics it showed the rise of the edit filters as a negative rather than a positive; But it does pick up on trends such as the decline in overall activity from 2017 to 2018 - activity at present is only about 10% above the 2014 low. I commend this methodology to other wikis, though perhaps in hindsight 10 million was too coarse a granularity. But it does leave me an interesting thought, could we do something similar, both for this and other metrics such as active editors but excluding other edits made by the same account in the same half hour? A fairly normal metric in volunteer based organisations is to try and measure volunteer hours contributed. When I fix a typo across Wikipedia I may do over a hundred edits per hour, someone copyediting one article may make dozens of little changes but only save once an hour, or once every ten minutes if they have learned to about edit conflicts. Activity metrics that measured estimated half hours of time volunteered to wikipedia would give an interesting metric that put AWB users like myself into a different perspective. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, thanks WereSpielChequers. The time between edits metric is a good idea for the larger wikis, but I do wonder if it is scalable to smaller projects (perhaps 1,000 edits might work better for those, perhaps). I do think that's a good way to get an overall feel for the general activity level of a project.
I do wonder how that would circle back to indicate the health of a community, since a healthy and an unhealthy one would still, in theory, have roughly the same level of activity. The same may well be true for volunteer hours—which I also think is a good metric to look at, when extrapolated across an entire population on a certain project. We would need to think about how this would relate, I believe, to the notion of a healthy community atmosphere in that regard, but I do think that looking past raw edit counts is sensible. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I would have thought that by definition a declining community is an unhealthy community, though I will concede that a growing community can also be growing in an unhealthy way. WereSpielChequers (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Mobile re PC[edit]

Wikipedia is much more editable on the desktop platform than it is on mobile, and this is very probably a major contributor to the phenomena of editing not taking off in those societies and demographics most likely to use Smartphones. It is likely to be a major contributor both to the greying of the pedia and also to the ethnicity skew. It should be possible to keep track of this by measuring differential rates of edits versus page hits on the mobile and desktop platforms, ideally by country. At the least this should test whether this really is our biggest current problem. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Also a fair suggestion, WereSpielChequers. Though this doesn't directly impact the working atmosphere of a project, new editors coming through mobile is certainly a trend that will become more and more important as time goes on. I know of a few editors who work primarily on mobile these days just using the desktop version of the site on their phones, but this is (in my opinion, at least) a pretty clunky solution. Comparing edit figures to pageviews, particularly across devices, is also interesting for that same "new editors" reason, though I don't know if it would indicate how healthy the project is. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Joe, Perhaps we are using different definitions of the word healthy. In many countries the Internet is mainly viewed on smartphones, and if mobile devices were easier to edit Wikipedia from we would already have a substantial proportion of our editors coming via mobile. To my mind our low rate of converting mobile readers into mobile editors is directly our main cause of recruitment problems, and indirectly I suspect it is the main cause both of our ethnicity skew and possibly a growing age skew as we distance ourselves from the smartphone generation. I assume that the decline in editing on the English wikipedia is a sign that there is something unhealthy about that project and if our ethnicity skew is greater than our gender skew then that makes it one of the biggest problems that we face. Or are you only interested in those aspects of community health that are probably down to incivility, such as the gender skew? WereSpielChequers (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on design[edit]

Other feedback[edit]

Much ado about nothing. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Most items are about the administration. The apparatus strikes back. Kängurutatze (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sign up for future updates[edit]