Page MenuHomePhabricator

[REQUEST] Editor count for Product Platform Strategy deck
Closed, ResolvedPublicMar 31 2021

Description

Name for main point of contact and contact preference
Carol Dunn, email & Slack (Slack is best if you need a quick response)

What teams or departments is this for?
Product

What are the details of your request? Include relevant timelines or deadlines
The Product Platform Strategy deck, editor numbers are included to illustrate the relationship between populations and engaged users (and to illustrate our potential for growth). The deck currently has a rough estimate of 250K editors/month, based on registered editors who make at least 1 edit.

Carol needs a verified number of editors per month with a clear definition she can provide if asked (e.g. what's included/filtered out, timeline used, etc).

Carol needs this number broken into Emerging and Existing markets, in addition to the global number.

How will you use this data or analysis?
To help set expectations about baselines and potential for Wikimedia's growth

Is this request urgent or time sensitive?
Yes - time sensitive; Carol will be presenting the deck during the all staff meeting on April 1

Details

Due Date
Mar 31 2021, 7:00 AM

Event Timeline

kzimmerman created this task.

For this deck, we should use the same logic used in Key Product Metrics, except filter for 1+ edits rather than 5+ edits.

Previously, @Milimetric ran the following query; does this match our logic?:

I got 350k for "editors with 1+ edits, excluding anonymous, excluding bots". I'm not in any way an analyst, so I probably did something wrong, but here's the query I ran in Presto:

select approx_distinct(event_user_text)
   from wmf.mediawiki_history
  where snapshot='2021-01'
    and event_timestamp between '2021-01' and '2021-02'
    and event_entity = 'revision'
    and event_type = 'create'
    and cardinality(event_user_is_bot_by_historical) = 0
    and cardinality(event_user_is_bot_by) = 0
    and not event_user_is_anonymous
;

Got the reply from Carol that she will stick to the numbers in the deck to avoid messing up the model.
Another note is, the definition for "established" markets in the deck is US, CA, JP, and Europe

@cchen & @kzimmerman that sounds fine to stick with the current numbers, but I'd just remove the parentheses that say "(at all)" because that'll definitely cause this same confusion in the future.