Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is it possible to get an update of this list?--

Also, could we update the statement "As of June 2006, the English Wikipedia received more than 120,000 edits a day; more than 67,000 people edited the Wikipedia in that month. As of November 2006, it received 200,000 edits a day." to some new numbers maybe for March of 2008.--

talk

) 17:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also been waiting awhile for an update. See here. Not many people can do it, so we just have to wait until one of them decides to. Enigma ^message 02:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Important note to the next updater: please this time let's avoid drama and respect people wishes, unlike the last updated did. If people are upset by the placeholders, just don't put them. They specifically asked not to be replaced by a placeholder, and it appears to me that the consensus in favor of respecting their wishes. If you think you know better, than you have to change the text on the page as it is now it's... what should I say? "Grossly incorrect" ? As a note for the bot list, I suggest that we shouldn't update it further. As I said when I made if, if anybody ask to be removed even from that list, then I won't updated it again. Since somebody did, I think we should left it as it is (or perhaps deleted it). There's no point if we can't even list bots. Anyway, since then many bots have been unflagged, so you would have, for both lists, to go thru BAG's talk page and gather the list. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not many people can do it? There are no real barriers to doing this other than time and technical expertise; as the list above mentions, pretty much anyone with an Internet connection, hard drive, and a knowledge of scripts can do this. (That does not include me.) -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Because two sections up Snowolf says "This list must be compiled only with toolserver data", and there aren't very many people with toolserver access. Hesperian 04:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Enigma ^message 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving out names of Wikipedians who actually made edits, and, even worse, leaving out placeholders, presents a fictionalized/falsified version of WP's history, making editors with fewer edits look like they are higher in rank than they actually are. All of these options are ill-advised, as we should not be allowing the whims of a few editors to cause this page to comprise falsified data. Our usernames are already a level of anonymity, as most editors do not use their actual full names as their usernames, so it's best if all editors who participated in our project as editors are included. Badagnani (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with this. People should not have the right to remove themselves from these lists. The list is intended to be comprehensive, and it's not up to individual people to determine whether they should be on the list. It's sort of similar to the BLP issue, although not exactly. You are "notable" whether you like it or not, if you've made a large number of edits. Allowing "opt outs" destroys the credibility of the list. Personally, I would like a definitive list of the top 500 human editors by edit count updated every two weeks or so. Probably not possible, but that would be ideal. Enigma ^message 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest we're talking a handful of users out of thousands. As someone who does read the list more for fun than anything else (I don't think this list will be a topic of interest to eminent historians) I have no problem with them being omitted if they don't wish to be there. Orderinchaos 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's not a huge drain on bandwidth to do it so frequently. Badagnani (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Compiling and anonymity Well, up above it says there's a method without toolserver access. I don't know if it works, but if it doesn't, that method should be deleted. I completely agree about the anonymity; it's sheer nonsense, but that's the compromise. If you want to change it, you'll have to propose that and go through an outrageous discussion/edit war with users who disagree. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The most recent update used the non-toolserver method. It turns out that method omits deleted edits, so that many users' edit counts actually fell. Some people expressed the sentiment that this list is pointless if it is calculated inconsistently from update to update. The non-toolserver method should therefore probably be deprecated. Hesperian 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The query is a bit long, so yes, it shouldn't be run to often. As for the placeholder, consensus can change. If so, I think that an RfC is in order, as I think it was the method used last time. (or was an MfD?)Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear. Personally, I think that there shouldn't be placeholder at all. Al this business of getting removed from this list is just nonsense. But you know, people like drama so much around here. When I first run this list, I tried to gasp what consensus on the issue was, and from what I understood (I say again, I may be wrong of course) the consensus led me to believe that I should remove the people from the anonymous page. So I did. I just think that after a MfD and a RfC, if you want to change the method, you can't do it just by updating the page how you like. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, for the updates, just catch somebody with ts access and ask them to update the list. I should have the queries somewhere and I can pass it along (however this time it requires to get the list of deflagged bots, so there is that additional work to do) and I have a executable which performed the old regex (not the table) that I can pass along. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that someone should make a bot the runs this automatically or semiautomatically. I think that would help to make the pulls more consistant and it would remove some of the human time it takes to do this.--

talk

) 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Its probably about time for another update, please. Simply south (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a social research who are really interested in this list and also have some questions about how this list have been established. May i ask the builder or one of builders can contact with me? regards!Wikizeyi (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The list have been automatically generated by different users in the past. I updated it twice, I believe, if I may be of any assistance, feel free to give me a ping ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am an undergraduate student currently doing a project on Wikipedia for my public sector economics module. Would be interested to know how this list is collated, and the extent that people can remain anonymous from the list, thanks very much for any help!Jacolin (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You can read how the list is created at /Instructions. Editors can ask to remain "anonymous", and their name will be replaced with User:Place holder. I think if someone is actually interested in identifying these "anonymous" editors, they can find out fairly easily, either by following the instructions at /Instructions, or perhaps by other means. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!Jacolin (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

see

Deleted. It was blatant disregard of the request of people who don't wish their names seen in this list. `'Míkka>t 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks What is the date of this information? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit count on it is the same that it was for most of today so I think it is today's or yesterday's information. Captain panda 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. It would be great to have it done on the actual page rather than on the talk page. Badagnani (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for updating it. Enigma ^message 06:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please restore blanked updated edit count. Blanking was highly disruptive. Badagnani (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not an agreed-upon updated edit count. For your personal fun please set up personal webpage and count whatever you want. Wikipedia is a project to build encyclopedia, not to caress wikipedians' egoes. `'Míkka>t 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are so many people so worked up about this? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Because for great many people wikipedia is

MMRPG, WTF, etc. `'Míkka>t

23:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Because a lot of us don't want to be on this list and we thought we'd seen the end of

iridescent

23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please restore blanked updated edit count. Blanking was highly disruptive. Badagnani (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Irony: People such as mikkalai who are so anti this stuff are probably one of the only reasons i care at all about edit count. Go figure :) Wizardman 23:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not me: I have severe editcountitis. ;) But I agree with Mikka's deletion of that page. ·

AndonicO ^Engage.

00:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tough one. What goes into the Wikipedia namespace must reflect community consensus, but what goes into user subspace only needs to conform with policy. There's no policy that governs this, except possibly NOTCENSORED. Hesperian 03:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he shouldn't have done it in his userspace in the first place... ·

AndonicO ^Engage.

03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Hesperian 04:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The update belongs on this actual page, not the discussion page or in someone's user page. Badagnani (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What Andon was getting at was that it shouldn't have been done at all because a few editors don't want their edit counts displayed. His argument was that it shouldn't have been done in userspace, or here either. Enigma ^message 05:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Which rather begs the point of my previous comment. Hesperian 06:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter that a few editors don't want their edit counts displayed. Most editors do not use their real names as their username and these few editors do not get to mandate that our history, in terms of total edits, is presented in a falsified manner. Badagnani (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I already know you hold that opinion, Badagnani. I was wondering why AndonicO thinks BetaCommand should not have created this list, not even in his user space. Hesperian 06:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it could be considered more or less a "bending" of

AndonicO ^Engage.

10:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Several people have been whining for an update, and here it is. If you want to put it onto the Wikipedia-space page, go ahead and do that, but don't criticize Beta for obtaining the information and making it available for you. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this is likly to rub some people the wrong way but IMHO this whole conversation is absolutely ridiculous. Wikipedia is open to the public so anyone can edit and anyone can SEE what edits anyone has made. You can request the data from the database for research and everything is open source. If you don't want people to know YOU edited or what you edited then don't edit its that simple. I hate to sound like a jerk but to me thats the bottom line. If someone is that sensitive about their privacy then they shouldn't be participating in this type of forum. I for one have chronic editcountitis and like to know where I stand amongst my peers. --

talk

) 11:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I haven't seen it here yet, the deletion is at DRV currently. Cheers all. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

...that in the discussed EdiCo list, the 5147-th ranked user:Duggy 1138 made 5147 edits and there is no users with this property in the official EdiCo lists?-) Mukadderat (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, very nice. :) ·

AndonicO ^Engage.

02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. No other users could have done that, because anyone with fewer edits would be ranked higher, and anyone with more edits would be ranked lower. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Freaky. Makes me want to not make anymore edits to keep it so. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to keep track of my number of edits without having to count them by hand. Is there any way to accomplish this? --Luigifan (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you click "My preferences" link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences) , you will see your current edit count. `'Míkka>t 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Preferences Wizardman 23:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also if you want to see your editing patterns/statistics, there's the wannabe kate tool (may take a while to load, depending on how many edits you have). ·

AndonicO ^Engage.

00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It will only count up to 45k edits though, unfortunately. --John (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as a regular user of Kate's wannabe I'm hoping that that issue will be resolved by March of 2026, by which time—at my current rate—I should hit 45,000 edits. :-) Unschool (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, once you get to 30K, it takes so long to load you don't even care anymore. :P ·

AndonicO ^Engage.

11:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually use wannabe_kate in a totally separate browser so that it can take its sweet sweet time without affecting my regular browsing. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"This list of 3,950 editors represents 58,303,358 total edits, with an average of 14,749 edits per editor. This accounts for over one quarter (28.5%) of the 204,385,742 total edits made to the English Wikipedia."

Hi, I'm researching Wikipedia and I was wondering whether the users who wished to exclude themselves from the list are still included in above cited totals? Are bots included? Is it possible to get bot edit sum somewhere? I'd be really grateful if someone could comment on this and help me out. It should also be mentioned on the page more clearly.

Since English Wikipedia's database outgrew stats.wikimedia tools there is very little statistics available to measure and evaluate Wikipedia (BTW does anybody know why they can't process the database from en.WP anymore?). Users are often worried about distracting others with numbers but statistics are vital for academic research and further (even non-academical) input for this community. It is next to impossible for example to measure current number of contributers to en.WP. Great shame and there are plenty of reasons why we should care.--Pethr (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Those stats are not accurate. It was added in February and the stats were not accurate even then, as there were not merely 3,950 editors. There were 4,000. I believe it's intended to include the stats of the users who excluded themselves (replaced by placeholders), but not that of the bots. Enigma ^message 05:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been updated now. Thanks Autumn! Enigma ^message 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated the page, since the new database dump released. The previous successful dump is as of 20080311/20080312. I revised the stats.

"This list of 4,000 editors (excluding bots) represents 64,567,607 total edits, with an average of 16,141 edits per editor. This accounts for 32.8% of the 196,705,582 total edits made to the English Wikipedia."

The users who wished to exclude themselves from the list are still included in above cited totals.

> Is it possible to get bot edit sum somewhere?

I think that it is possible. The page Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits exists. But that page does not seem to be maintained. --AutumnSnow (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I investigated the past versions of this list. See the following.

Feel free to revise the above table. --AutumnSnow (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to confirm their statistics by comparing between Rich Farmbrough's edit counts as well as Bearcat's, we already have a new winner! Until when will we encounter a user with at least 200,000 edits? 60.50.8.38 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is great they have edited so much, the fact that one user overtook another isn't really winning at all. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Contributing to Wikipedia isn't a competition. Though I am curious to know why an anon IP with no prior edit history would be monitoring edit stats this closely. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Bearcat, we won't run a CU on you. ;) ·

AndonicO ^Engage.

15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ar ar. Considering that the IP resolves to Malaysia anyway, I'm mainly concerned about whether Rich or I is being cyberstalked for some reason. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kinda fun to see you pass me though - and I don't think cyber-stalkage is a problem - looks like an ISP short lease address.

28 May 2008

(GMT).

Watching the Bearcat skyrocketing over some time I have strong suspicion that 60.50.8.38 is a self-announcement of long-striven glory. But not for long. I bet Blofeld of S will outrun them both in a couple months easily. And there are quite a few TWINKLE-armed semibots breathing in their backs too. So in half year this editcountitis list will have top ten cyborgs with the rest of menial laboring wikipedians (wikichirians) tens of K way below. Mukadderat (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why bot edits should remain separated from human edits. Just saying. Tvoz/talk 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my dirty little secret is that I don't own a TV, and I'm not really much of a gamer, either. So Wikipedia ends up being what I do with my free time instead of watching The Amazing Race or playing Guitar Hero. That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it! Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder. Lame TV shows and boring games never pulled me off wikipedia either. Star Trek and Call of Duty 4 have another effect altogether, though. ;) By the way, you were in the signpost. ·

AndonicO ^Engage.

14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why watch Star Trek when arguing about it is so much more fun? :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but TOS is somewhat boring; TNG and VOY are vastly superior. Not that anyone cares; they're too busy watching Desperate Housewives (and football--either association or American). ·

AndonicO ^Engage.

02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I think this high-score-table should be deleted, but the MFD consensus doesn't agree. Ranking by "content added" has its own problems; no bot can tell the difference between a ten-second edit re-adding a deleted section, and a one-edit-total-rewrite that potentially takes days of work like this (example deliberately chosen as it immediately follows my 1000/2h session but is "lost" in the stream of reverts). Going by

iridescent

17:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a rank system? No, but we do need editors cleaning up the "poop", and, unfortunately, some of them are probably motivated largely by how their work (mindless though it is, it is labor) is acknowledged on this table. I wish we could somehow separate Twinkle/Huggle edits from this, and have a separate listing for these semi-automated edits and another for regular edits; this would allow the constant vandal fighters to receive the acknowledgement they may desire, and yet the work of building up the encyclopedia would be acknowledged as well.

I must say, Alansohn's comment, after my use of Twinkle for three or four months, has caused me to reconsider my feeling about requiring registration. It is unbelievable how much time one can twiddle away reverting anon vandalism. I don't know about others, but I set the filter on Recent changes to only look at anon edits, in the mainspace, and 80% of the edits I see are vandalism of varying levels of maliciousness. I almost wish I had never signed up for Twinkle (don't tell me I can stop anytime; it doesn't feel ethical not doing my part on a regular basis). So while I genuinely truly value those editors who live on Huggle Highs, I agree with Alansohn that we could really chop the vandalism down by requiring registration, and what would be the loss? Anonymity is actually enhanced by registration, if you think about it. Okay, I'm not saying anything that experienced editors don't already know, I guess I'm just thinking outloud. Unschool 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I share the belief that one should be registered to edit, but unfortunately Wikipedia does not share that point of view, and I doubt that it ever will. So we are doomed to continue our unending vandal fighting efforts. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd find that most regular editors would agree with you on that. I spend a good portion of my time reverting vandalism on the articles on my watchlist. Getting rid of IP editing should've been done years ago, but alas it's the encyclopedia "anyone" can edit, which apparently means we must take into account editors who just

couldn't be arsed. Enigma ^message

04:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remove bots from the newly generated list, as has been the practice in the past. Badagnani (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just going to say something about that, given the notice at the top that states bots aren't in the list (or at least not counted). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. That was tedious. Useight (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a quick way to do it? I suspect by your comment that you did it by hand. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know of a quicker way than doing it by hand. Unfortunately. Useight (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey User:Rjwilmsi uses AWB all the time!! He is essentially a bot! The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was playing around with the list and noticed what appears to be a pattern, that the most-editors do the least changes per edit. I suppose this should be obvious in retrospect, given that each edit should take time x.

So has anyone done a list of total content edited? Yes, I realize this would also be prone to 'bot inflation and such.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For just the top ten editors, that would require looking at 1.8 million edits. I think even bots would have a hard time calculating that... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It would also be impossible. Your typical Huggler probably "adds" more content – in the sense of reverting page blankings and adding long template messages to talk pages – in a single week than I've added in my entire time here. Unless you're planning to manually examine not just every single edit, but every single edit prior to that in the article's history to look for identical versions, this would be meaningless. – 

iridescent

22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly possible. The academic studies usually take a history-based approach like that. --

10 January 2009

(GMT)

Yeah, come on, 1.8 million edits? That will take what, 10 seconds to process? My database at work has multiple tables that are larger than the entire wikipedia and do lookups in times so small they can't be represented in three decimal places. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between performing 1.8 million lookups on an indexed column, and comparing the text of a particular version of an article to the text of every previous version of that article, and evaluating an originality metric for that version, 1.8 million times. Hesperian 04:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How about listing those editors who use a bot to help them make edits separately?Ryoung122 14:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit to a mild case of editcountitis; I check my edit count probably half a dozen times a week using Kate's Wannabe. So I generally have a generally good general idea generally of where my general edit count generally stands, generally. So I just got a shock (no medical attention required) when I found that my count today was nearly 1000 edits less than yesterday. Can this be explained? I mean, I know we lose deleted edits from our count, but man . . . that kinda surprised me. Even weirder, Kate's wannabe says that I have had 1293 edits since Dec 1, yet it shows my total as having only 639 more edits than I had on the Nov 20 dump. So I guess I lost 600-800 edits from prior to Nov 20, I guess. Strange.

Just one more reason to not get hung up on edit counts, I guess. Unschool 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

When the Image: space moved to File: , it messed up Kate's tool, since it doesn't recognize File. As a result your image edits (600-800 i guess) aren't listed, even though they will be noted in the batebase dump this update uses. Wizardman 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is still some other problems. but SQL tools Soxred93 tool shows it properly -- Tinu Cherian - 07:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, that should be "Wannabe Kate", not "Kate's Wannabe" and it is actually Interiot's tool. Simply south not SS, sorry 10:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Which value does this list take into account – one that includes deleted contributions (i.e. the number listed in

My understanding and from reading the archives is that usually deleted edits are included. But on at least one occasion they weren't. WereSpielChequers 19:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Creation

) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? --Closedmouth (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish link (and I assume the others also) is to a "list of users who have created more than 500 pages". Globalphilosophy, the reason we don't do that here it that it's meaningless in the context of English Wikipedia with its 6,818,584 articles; not only are many articles created by bots or semi-automated tools, but relatively few significant articles are created from redlinks; most major articles work on en-wikipedia is the expansion and rewriting of existing articles, which such a tool wouldn't measure. – 

iridescent

10:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be really interesting and I nearly considered writing a report last week, but it's a giant hassle to get the data with a database query. It's much better suited for a database dump, which I don't have easy access to and I don't believe there are any recent dumps. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Iridescent. Virtually all of the 5,500+ articles I've created (just gone through that milestone!) have been done via redlinks. Again, like this project page, bots can be removed from any count. Lugnuts (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts. Sure, I've expanded many stubs, but I'd love to be able to see a list of the number of articles created from red links. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This tool should help for now -- Tinu Cherian - 02:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

this tool is limited to users with less than 100,000 edits. Sorry -- Tinu Cherian - 02:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for preparing a new list

Isn't it time for a new enumeration? I request someone to do it as I do not have the necessary tools in my computer.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 08:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I set it up to update weekly in my sandbox. Somebody else can filter the results if they'd like to. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't post updates to this page without removing the users who have opted out. What MZMcBride does in his userspace is his business, but here we honour opt-outs. Reverted for now. Hesperian 03:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I don't think I should have lent a helping hand here-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your helping hand is wonderful. There are just about 10 or 15 editors who don't wish to be included here, but you can simply ignore them, as Wikipedia edits are not secret; we are transparent in everything we do, including record of our edits. Our anonymity is preserved by our usernames, which in most cases are not our real names. So there's nothing to worry about; carry on with your work, which is greatly appreciated. This page is often neglected for many months and it's wonderful that you chose to help. Badagnani (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"wonderful"? "greatly appeciated"? "wonderful" again? I had no idea you were capable of such affection, Badagnani. Your views on opt-outs are well documented by now, but so too is that fact that there is consensus in the opposite direction. Hesperian 11:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody update

WP:EDITS with the given info by MZM ? -- Tinu Cherian

- 07:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Calculating your rank

As of the November 2008 revision: To calculate your number of edits from your rank, EDITS = (750000 - 71.6*RANK)/sqrt(RANK) To calculate your rank from your number of edits, RANK = ( sqrt (EDITS^2 + 214800000) - EDITS)^2 / 20500

This doesn't work if you're in the top 500 editors, but it's straight as Hari Seldon past that point. ;)

To make a better fit for the top 500 editors, we can arbitrarily increase the rank of all editors by 23. Then replace 750000 with 753000 and 214800000 with 216000000. As seen below, this produces a much better line.

A paranoid schizophrenic might be tempted to say that this proves that psychohistory has demonstrated the existence of a cabal of 23 people exempt from logging, all of whom edit Wikipedia more than all but the top few editors, but perhaps then someone would have to make him away. ;)

Wnt (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done... While I agree that we need more Foundation-Wikimedia (lol... I just realized something very interesting about the Wikimedia Foundation) comparisons, I don't see why we can't just use an edit counter? That being said, this is very interesting, might want to save it somewhere. · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you know of a place to save it, please do. It's public domain. ;) I hope this inspires the person compiling the next list to run it through to a higher number of editors. I was actually very surprised at the form the equations took here, and I'd be curious to see if it carries through to the less frequent editors. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably just make a subpage on this page (well, not the talk page), and then maybe link it somewhere where it's visible. · AndonicO ^Engage. 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see why a subpage might be needed... this keeps raising questions. I put through the numbers from the 9-23-2006 set (including bots as ranked members) and got a curve with sqrt(RANK+12)*EDITS + 72*RANK = approximately 367000:

This one has a stronger front-end deviation for the first 30 bots and admins than in the second graph, even though I'm using a smaller fudge factor (12 instead of 24) to keep the first 500 about level. This is close to the end of the Wikipedia statistics page quoted below; while it's not precise and something could be drastically off (I'm comparing different measurements), I count approximately 54 million edits at that time, versus 289 million now. That ratio is 5.3, vs. 2.2 for the ratio between 367000 and 816000, so it appears that this constant might be proportional to the square root of the total Wikipedia edits. Unfortunately earlier versions of this list at least mostly don't use the same edit counts, while I still don't know how to get later historical versions of the total edit count for Wikipedia. What I am convinced of by now is that this very simple mathematical form has remained applicable for several years. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Which is (with caveats): currently rank 9398.0334570037 for 10000 edits. (Unfortunately, I don't know of a magic word for your number of edits, so to evaluate yours with this expression you need to replace 10000 with your number and preview - otherwise it would be a cute thing to put on the main project page. But this is also more approximate than the date-specific formulas and may be off by 10% or more - it needs fine-tuning with a consistent data set, and in any case it's still based on a hypothetical relationship with the square root. Apparently that's not true (unless I'm comparing incompatible data): in the earlier data sets it calculates ranks that are high by a factor of two or more. But I thought I should put it down as a start.Wnt (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

February 2009 version

I've migrated to the Feb 2009 version, thanks to

sufficiently advanced that you want to be treated as a sentient user) please add yourself here (AI projects that are using Wikipedia to try and pass the Turing test should leave their AI user to decide for itself which if any of these lists to join). WereSpielChequers

13:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Note: a very small imperfection is that some rank numbers are missing digits: #224 ("22") #3452 ("345"). And there's nobody between #358 and #379. My new plot shows only a spike there, so a piece must be missing - the ranks should be right. There are also some spikes near the end I didn't track down yet. I'll wait a bit before putting up the new plot so you can go over the trouble. But in summary, the plot looks very similar to the last one: substitute somewhere between 800000-818000 for 750000 and change the slope from 71.6 to 72-80; for the higher end numbers perhaps change 23 to 24 or 25. Choosing very exact numbers would demand explicit statistical criteria for which part of the plot is most important to level, and I'd really prefer to see more of the tail of the distribution for that. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting those three anomalies, all are now fixed. WereSpielChequers 00:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There were two more minor fixes to make, 3392 to 3592, 3585 to 3858, and now the plot is nice and smooth. Using RANK* = your actual rank + 24:

• EDITS = (816000 - 80 * RANK*) / sqrt (RANK*)
• RANK* = ( sqrt(EDITS^2+261120000) - EDITS)^2 / 25600
  

Wnt (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Feb 25th 2009 version has now been reinstated, and I've fixed the anomalies - 3392 to 3592, 3585 to 3858 that WNT spotted. WereSpielChequers 20:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Automating this a bit more

bjweeks fixed up my script a bit to exclude people on the Unflagged bots list and to replace the names of people listed on the Anonymous

list. (Note that this is based on User: links.)

In addition, I bumped the limit to 5,000 from 4,000. New results are available in my sandbox and it will updated weekly. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats great, but is there anyway of making it smaller or subdividing it? My PC throws a wobbly when I ask it to edit pages that are much over 100k. WereSpielChequers 08:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions? I suppose it could be split into two pages or something.... Is there a big need to edit the list regularly? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've compared your dataset from today to that from two weeks ago, doing a little bit of interpolating to compensate for my numberofedits counts not being truly two weeks apart: the total number of edits is increasing at 1.94 times the rate of my main constant (~800,000). Since this is a relationship between their derivatives, that is consistent with the square root formula I suggested above. Roughly speaking, the increase in Wikipedia's size seems to be equally due to an increase in the number of edits for the occupant of rank N and the number of editors in total. Hopefully I can continue to work this out at a few more time points and solidify the relationship with this consistent data. Wnt (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Creation archive!

Creation

talk

) 01:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

iridescent

16:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Total number of edits in Wikipedia?

Is there a way to find out the total number of edits that had ever been made to Wikipedia as of November 20, 2008 and as of February 25, 2009? It is a useful statistic to compare to the total number of edits for individuals for the article, and I have my own use for it (I would like to see if I can make the 750000-818000 number proportional to it). Wnt (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; {{NUMBEROFEDITS}} should do the trick. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a useful tool, and I should subst it now, but how can I get historical information? There is relevant information at User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis, the Wikipedia internal site[1], and on a blog I found,[2] but I'm having a heck of a time trying to find the truth (in part because Google's increasingly useless Web site cannot distinguish "NUMBEROFEDITS" from "number of edits" by any means I can divine) Anyway, there's 289,757,071 at the moment.

Hmm, I don't know, sorry... might be worth asking at the Computing Refdesk. · AndonicO ^Engage. 06:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For Gsearching, try: NUMBEROFEDITS -"number of edits", i.e. [3] --

^(talk)

20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Where I should be!!!

I should be on 3.161...i have 10,000 edits!(Planecrash111 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

You have 1862 edits. Nice try. – 

iridescent

18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Boo.(Planecrash111 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

Tools

Is it possible to separate the number of users by edit using tools like Huggle, Twinkle, AWB etc from those who don't? Simply south (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You can filter out automated edits for an individual user on a case-by-case basis. Someone could probably automate it to apply this to every user on the list, but it's a processor-hungry task and doing it regularly would probably lock the servers. (The reason we post the edit count at RFA is to discourage people from running editcounts themselves; it's one of the most server-hungry processes we have.)

iridescent

15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Active editors

I am curious what percentage of these editors are still active? Is there an easy way to tell that? Listing the editors last date of activity would be useful. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A comparison with Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits might be edifying. Skomorokh 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Although that hasn't been updated for almost a year. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for updation?

It is over 2 months now .. last update was on feb 25 ... Time to update the list? -- Tinu Cherian - 04:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 3 --Closedmouth (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit big for my PC to update, I tried a couple of weeks ago and may try again soon. ϢereSpielChequers 09:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK tis done. I've extracted the latest after MZMcBride built it and updated a few stats on the page. ϢereSpielChequers 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits

Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits reads, "This is a list of bots ordered by total number of edits …" The current list is, however, ordered alphbetically by name of bot. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to user pages

Why aren't there any? Zurqoxn (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a very big file and expanding it to include links, or other date such as sysop flags, whether retired or active or any other detail than currently shown would exclude more editors whose kit can't load large pages. ϢereSpielChequers 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Place holder

What are the "Place holder" entires - are these the editors who don't want to be identified, or bots run by users ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The former It's some nonsense by editors who raised a fuss about being associated with their edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Justin, your tone towards fellow wikipedians is inadmissible. Please respect the colleagues. - Altenmann >t 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, don't worry Justin, it is admissible. I admiss it. :D — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Any editor who doesn't want to be associated with the volume of their edits can add their user name to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous and their username will be replaced with placeholder on the next version; You are also welcome to update the current list and replace your username with "place holder". Hopefully there aren't any bots in the list, but if you spot one please add it to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots and its edits will be ignored the next time the list is updated. ϢereSpielChequers 07:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Name change

Inaccurate This is only about the English Wikipedia, so it should be titled Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits to the English Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that's ever been a point of confusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not needed, unless this page was in meta wiki. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to update ? ....

... The last update was in April'09 -- Tinu Cherian - 07:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 3. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's never a bad time to update. After 60-90 days though yeah, it's time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I update my sandbox to avoid the nasty political issues surrounding this list. If people could agree to be nice (at least to me), I'd be happy to have the bot update the actual list. (It currently is set to run once a week.) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any distinction between the methodology of the two lists? If not, I see no reason why this should not be updated by your means.  Skomorokh  17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the past few updates to this list have been directly from my sandbox. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one pledge to be nice (and grateful) if you would have the bot update this list. Does anyone object?  Skomorokh  17:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done the last couple of updates here using

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest, also there are a few tweaks made to this page each time to give some details as to which snapshot was taken when and a few other stats. I'm not sure if anyone uses those stats but they seem to be a tradition. Also I've run the occasional trawl for unflagged bots and added them to a list that MZMcBride screens against. ϢereSpiel

Chequers 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

60 days has not passed yet, wait 2 weeks. Simply south (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

When did we ever decide for 60 days? I would support a bot to update it on a more frequent basis -- Tinu Cherian - 01:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that at the end of each month (if it could be done by a bot) would be preferable. If it's done manually I could understand that it would be a task to do it frequently, but if a bot could be employed then why not more regularly. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride, you want to file a

BRFA for the task ? -- Tinu Cherian

- 08:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For now, I think I'm just going to keep it updating in my sandbox. It updates weekly (and the sandbox is only used for this list nowadays, so you can easily watchlist the page); you all can update the actual list whenever you all decide. (Though, for the record, I think Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BernsteinBot sufficiently covers this type of bot.) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure MZM, since this task is technicaly a bit "Controversial " compared to that generic request, IMO a new BRFA may be needed. Believe me, there are lots of people who actually hate editcountis :). It will be great if can let your bot update the real page also on a periodic basis. -- Tinu Cherian - 09:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have updated as of June 10, 2009 from MZM's sandbox. Whew. It crashed my Firefox brower several times while doing this ! -- Tinu Cherian - 11:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done! I think its slightly more practical to do this by only copying the first 4,000 places as that makes for a significantly smaller file. But yes I've had this crash both IE and Firefox when I've updated it in the past. ϢereSpielChequers 11:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it did truncate it to 4000. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated as of 1 July 2009 -- Tinu Cherian - 05:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)