Thanks Nemo, Just because the edit filter is enabled by default doesn't mean that every wiki has people optimising it to find vandalism in their language.
I'm trying to work out what the underlying "real" level of editing has been since 2009. The problem with measuring either unreverted edits or edits by active users is that the edit filters don't just lose us a large proportion of the vandalism that we used to get, they also lose us a lot of goodfaith edits that have ceased to be necessary, including the vandalism reversions, warnings and block messages that have been automated away by the edit filter. The stats at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm get round part of that by only measuring mainspace edits, so they don't count the warnings and block messages that we've lost. Though they presumably have lost the reversion of vandalism that has now been prevented by the edit filter. But measuring article space edits has its own problems - the more article creation has shifted to sandboxes in userspace and especially to on EN wiki to WP space as part of Articles for creation, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation> the less meaningful it is to measure the different spaces as if their boundaries were immutable. I appreciate that some of these things are difficult to measure, but sometimes it is the difficult stuff that is important. A case in point being the increasing tendency to revert unsourced edits on EN Wiki. The stats you quote treat all reversions the same, so the rise in simply reverting unsourced edits would appear to be more than masked by a combination of the loss of vandalism reversions to the edit filter, and the inreasing speed and sophistication of the vandalfighting bots. Regards Jonathan On 28 August 2013 13:49, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote: > The question can't really be answered without knowing what you want to > achieve; I'll start from the end. > > WereSpielChequers, 28/08/2013 14:13: > > This is of more than academic interest, if we simply ignore this effect >> and >> make decisions based on the remaining raw edits after the edit filter, >> then >> the more efficient the edit filter gets at preventing vandalism the more >> we >> would be beating ourselves up for losing edits. >> > > Usually we consider the number of active users, which is less affected by > this. Editing activity should be measured using > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm>which > allows to check for unreverted edits (just updated by Erik after a > few years it had been dormant). > > If your aim is measuring the impact AbuseFilter in reducing patrolling > efforts, then it's another matter. I've requested some reports in > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/show_bug.cgi?id=42359<https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42359>: > there are already some DB queries but we lack a visualisation. > You can also use > https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Abuse_filter<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abuse_filter>to > find what wikis used (or not) the abuse filter and how, before it was > enabled by default on all wikis. > > Nemo > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
