Change Details

As discussed on analytics list, the thing behind http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/mediawiki.html will be useful in general if it manages to apply the standard definitions for content namespaces etc. However, for MediaWiki.org specifically, what we really lack in stats.wikimedia.org is a measure of discussion activity, specifically namespace 1. MediaWiki.org will be successful if it hosts vibrant discussion involving all the relevant stakeholders of MediaWiki development, but the current graphs is useless in monitoring that. For instance: * top editor for last month is MegaAlex, who did a lot of work on translations for [[mw:GCI]], but he made more than 1971 edits (and Vldandrew made much more than 132): probably help pages are not being counted here; * the bug 59815 fiasco was successful in attracting a lot of discussion from new people on the wiki: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=www.mediawiki&page=Talk%3ATypography+refresh but this won't show anywhere in the graph, while it would be very evident in a ZeitGeist which happened to include n1. http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaMEDIAWIKI.htm#zeitgeist -------------------------- **Version**: unspecified **Severity**: enhancement **URL**: http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/mediawiki.html

As discussed on analytics list, the thing behind http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/mediawiki.html will be useful in general if it manages to apply the standard definitions for content namespaces etc. However, for MediaWiki.org specifically, what we really lack in stats.wikimedia.org is a measure of discussion activity, specifically namespace 1. MediaWiki.org will be successful if it hosts vibrant discussion involving all the relevant stakeholders of MediaWiki development, but the current graphs is useless in monitoring that. For instance: * top editor for October 2014 was MegaAlex, who did a lot of work on translations for [[mw:GCI]], but he made more than 1971 edits (and Vldandrew made much more than 132): probably help pages are not being counted here; * T61815 fiasco was successful in attracting a lot of discussion from new people on the wiki: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=www.mediawiki&page=Talk%3ATypography+refresh but this won't show anywhere in the graph, while it would be very evident in a ZeitGeist which happened to include n1. http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaMEDIAWIKI.htm#zeitgeist -------------------------- **Version**: unspecified **Severity**: enhancement **URL**: http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/mediawiki.html

As discussed on analytics list, the thing behind http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/mediawiki.html will be useful in general if it manages to apply the standard definitions for content namespaces etc. However, for MediaWiki.org specifically, what we really lack in stats.wikimedia.org is a measure of discussion activity, specifically namespace 1. MediaWiki.org will be successful if it hosts vibrant discussion involving all the relevant stakeholders of MediaWiki development, but the current graphs is useless in monitoring that. For instance: * top editor for last month iOctober 2014 was MegaAlex, who did a lot of work on translations for [[mw:GCI]], but he made more than 1971 edits (and Vldandrew made much more than 132): probably help pages are not being counted here; * the bug 59815* T61815 fiasco was successful in attracting a lot of discussion from new people on the wiki: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=www.mediawiki&page=Talk%3ATypography+refresh but this won't show anywhere in the graph, while it would be very evident in a ZeitGeist which happened to include n1. http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaMEDIAWIKI.htm#zeitgeist -------------------------- **Version**: unspecified **Severity**: enhancement **URL**: http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/mediawiki.html