Talk:Wikimedia monthly activities meetings/Quarterly reviews/Editing, July 2015

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

Re: Multimedia[edit]

This section is highly annoying. See mailarchive:mobile-l/2015-April/009014.html, mailarchive:multimedia/2015-June/001071.html. --Nemo 22:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Save rate[edit]

Editing department – Quarterly Review slide deck, 2014–15 Q4.pdf

Very fragile. Are you filtering bots and how, for instance? Of course bots won't load veaction=edit. --Nemo 22:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to filter bots because the edit events that make up this data are generated by code running on the users' computers and then sent to our servers. Things that use the API, like bots, never run such code, so the data is already limited to actual users editing through the website and the mobile apps.—Neil P. Quinn-WMF (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Your assumption "Things that use the API, like bots" is wrong. --Nemo 10:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
action=edit, action=raw etc. can and are used by bots as well. What made you think they are not? --Nemo 16:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nemo bis: Interesting. Could you give me some examples? At any rate, if there are a significant number of bots who use the HTML wikitext editor and run our Javascript logging code, that would, if anything, make the wikitext editor look better, because a bot would be far less likely to abandon an edit partway through than a human.—Neil P. Quinn-WMF (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nemo bis: It turns out I was incorrect earlier. I talked to Dan Andreescu about this and he clarified that init and saveSuccess events for the wikitext editor are in fact logged on the server so it's slightly more likely that bot edits might be represented. However, he agrees that (1) any bot which uses action=edit instead of the API is not well (although I'm still interested in examples if you have them) and (2) if any bots are in fact generating edit events, that would make the wikitext editor look better, not worse.—Neil P. Quinn-WMF (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)