Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/In the media

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


← Back to In the media

Discuss this story

Minor point, but I'm not sure Tamzin's RFA was by far the highest-participation RFA. Floq 2 in 2019 garnered 325/116/15 which makes it a mere 13 fewer than Tamzin...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moreover, the number of successful Requests for Adminship per year is far lower than the number of administrators who die, leave the project, or otherwise lose the tools (voluntarily or otherwise).

    For all the times I've seen this argument, I'd be much more interested in the figure of how many "active" admins become inactive (churn) and reactivate each year. That inactive admins eventually lose the tools does not seem to be of much consequence. Which reminds me, @Widefox, has your User:Widefox/editors active admin trend line remained the same? czar 01:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: trendline vs 2019 to 2022 data. Yes, that does sound interesting to compare prediction with three years more of data. IRL is preventing an update, unfortunately. I'll have to dig up the raw data and post it, to give someone else a chance, unless it can wait a timescale of a/a-few month(s). Widefox; talk 19:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature dataset, tucked at the bottom of this report, is quite interesting, and could be summarized in a dedicated Signpost report. Big data summary of Wikipedia and Wikidata, cool stuff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer, HaeB, and Piotrus: The couple of paragraphs above show my limitations as an "academic reviewer", and of ITM as a forum for this. I won't prohibit myself from doing it again though - "limitation" doesn't mean "total disqualification". In general, I view these paragraphs, as well as the paper itself, as a "starting gun". There's a number of things The Signpost+ could do with this: e.g. a full review at Recent research, and since the paper is CC-BY 4.0 we could feature the graphs, or even an extract of the paper in its own article. Though at 19 pages of small print, it's too long to extract.
I'm super excited about where the authors and others could follow up the paper. It might even open a new academic field - is there a term for the meta analysis of the history of biography? IMHO, this area will go as far as academia decides to take it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones I do find this fascinating, but I'll just note this is not entirely new. A number of prior studies have played with Big Data and Wikidata. meta:WDO, with a bunch of cool graphs, comes to mind. Or my own Wikigender Wikidata Human Gender Indicator, to tout my own horn a bit [1] :P I am reasonably sure there are more similar ideas out there (and do ping me if anyone reads this and remembers some). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to be slightly surprised but impressed by Stephen Harrison's reporting on Wikipedia for Slate. An RfA is a strangely obscure choice of topic—I can't assess how interesting it would be to a non-Wikimedian—but the coverage is detailed, well-researched, has a coherent narrative, and includes many important points. If Stephen happens to be reading: thank you for the reporting! — Bilorv (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-06-26/In_the_media&oldid=1096510911"