Alexandru Micu (2020-05-05).
"Meet the Internet's unsung heroes: Wikipedia's human collaborators". ZME Science. Retrieved 2020-05-06. Wikipedia actually has a pretty interesting page dedicated to tracking the most prolific authors on the site. All contributors are equal in the eyes of the site and its userbase, so this list isn't about giving anyone bragging rights.
The latest list (2023-01-02) suddenly includes MalnadachBot and Cydebot at the top of the list - KasparBot at 11, CmdrObot at 112, ProteinBoxBot at 299 - there appear to be more bots further down -
Arjayay (
talk)
15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Table 1 and Table 2 are confusing, at best, and absurd, at worst.
I would tend to think, and I think most people would think that "
Registered editors by edit count (only successful contributors)
"
is a subset of "Registered editors by edit count (all registered accounts)". So I am, and I think many others would be, very puzzled to see that in many rows the subset seems to contain more members than the set.
For example, having exactly ten edits means one is among the "top 2,330,000 of all users", and also among the "top 2,804,000 of all contributors" in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. This seems to be a mathematical impossibility.
Polar Apposite (nice user name), what do you think about Table 2 being moved to the Table 1 slot? Would that unconfuse the issue. I'd personally prefer that. It's like, you can sign up for a marathon but not run it. If you don't run it you can't go around saying "I competed in the All-State Marathon". Editors who have edited are Wikipedian editors, those who haven't are not yet Wikipedia editors. Maybe a commonsense viewpoint.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
02:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd personally just switch the two. Table One has its uses per individuals who have taken the time to sign up as potential editors, although most have not edited. The present table 2 seems to have much more information relevant to this page, and gives a clearer picture of who edits the project.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
15:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I've no particular objection to their being swapped, but it seems like swapping deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is the seeming contradictions between the tables, and the lack of clear meanings for terms like "editor" and "user" (I had thought the users were our readers).
A row for zero edits would be useful, I think, because you'd get to see the big picture, i.e. the 46 million total (of "users" ?), and it would set everything else in context nicely, I think. For example, where it says,
"1 edit...top 30% of all users...top 14,000,000 of all users... ("That's more than") 70%",
the implication is that 14,000,000 is thirty percent of all users, which implies that there are 46,000.000 users total. And every other row has the same implication if you do the math. So I think, for the sake of completeness, the zero edit row should be added, and boxes marked "not applicable" wherever that is the case, perhaps with a footnote explaining why it is not applicable.
Polar Apposite (
talk)
15:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)reply
New column
@
Legoktm:@
0xDeadbeef: Would it be possible to add a new column to the table with the editor's first year of edits, pulling data from either user creation or a user's first edit? Here is an example: Cards8466416:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that, but I wonder generally who are aware of this. Not me, for sure. Anyhow, I will ask one or the other of them if they can take a look. -
Derek R Bullamore (
talk)
18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My impression is there are very few editors that are both capable and willing to troubleshoot, fix, and generally babysit any bot doing these tasks. To quote another editor: You can't just put Toolforge jobs on autopilot and expect them to run forever.[1]DB1729talk19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
...and the Foundation has how much money and how many tech workers to support Wikipedia? I've never understood why our volunteer bot creators and maintainers can't instantly call on assistance from Foundation personnel, at the very minimum.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
22:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My point is that the Foundation collects massive donations to assist Wikipedia, and, sometimes like this, it may need assistance. If I'm wrong and they are on call 24-7, willing to help and willing to fund old and new bots, good to hear.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed, this page isn't on my watchlist (it now is). I merged and deployed
the fix and it's updated and should continue to do so. I will be honest that out of all the database reports, this is, at least in my eyes, one of the least important ones. HaleBot is collaboratively maintained, if people want to pitch in and help I'm always happy to help guide/tutor/etc.
Legoktm (
talk)
23:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It appears only 3-4 editors (Catfurball, Mr.choppers, Derek R Bullamore, me) regularly check or notice when the page stops updating. I can pitch in, but do I need to run a server locally to test any changes, or will my work always be on another server? Jay 💬05:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply