User talk:GlimmerPhoenix

--Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

... for the typo catching on WMF Summer of Research. :) Steven Walling at work 22:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sources and licenses, please?

• File:Bots shares logged.png
• File:Bots shares total.png

--Jusjih 07:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Jusjih. I've just fixed licensing info on both pages. I hope I can use same template as in Commons. Thanks. --GlimmerPhoenix 09:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. Wikimedia Commons also uses cc-by-sa-3.0.--Jusjih 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey GlimmerPhoenix,

I wanted to ask for your help. As you may be aware we have been running banners on many language wikis. We have a lot of new content this year and I really want to conduct a thorough review of our translations. This is a combination of feedback from the community, readers, donors as well as those with professional translator experience. This will help us ensure the highest quality of translations used in our messaging.

To help us out with this I wonder if you would be willing to give us feedback for Spanish using This Link

Simply follow the simple instructions on that page and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.

Many Thanks

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on the Participation Support Program! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you submitted or commented on Participation Support requests in the past.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the Participation Support Program again soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Haitham, Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello GlimmerPhoenix, I saw your contribution at Research_talk:Anonymous_editor_acquisition#Hints_from_previous_work and that is really interesting! Where can i read more about this study?

I made a little analysis at Talk:Flagged Revisions#Comparison of some Wikipedias, that might interest you. Unfortunately, I more and more get the impression that Flagged Revisions is treated like the ignored stepchild by WMF developers, even though FR has a huge impact on new editors, editor retention, article quality etc. See i.e. when we activated Article Feedback Tool in December 2012 for several months of testing on deWP and it wasn't visible for readers (the target group!) for a week, because it conflicted with gesichtete Versionen (surprise?). Or, presently en:Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#New notification "gesichtet" needed for deWP, plWP, ruWP, arWP etc: Echo/notifications is already rolled out on several Wikipedias that have flagged revisions, so newbies there get notified of reverts (negative feedback), but not when their contribution is accepted (no positive feedback). Nobody seems to care?!

Anyway, i'd love to hear more about your study! :-) --Atlasowa (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Thanks for your interest, Atlasowa. This study began a long time ago, back in 2008, and it is funded by WM-DE. The project proposal was stalled for a year, due to some bureaucratic issues with our university, and was finally kicked off in 2009. The initial goal was to anlayze the performance of reviewing activities after the adoption of flagged revisions in the German Wikipedia. Soon after, we thought it was a good idea to expand the analysis and compare it with other languages with flagged revisions (Russian, Polish). We also decided to compare the activity of anonymous editors in these languages with other Wikipedias of similar size (French, Dutch, Italian).

I presented the first round of results in Wikimania 2010. After that, we agreed upon broadening the scope of the analysis a bit more (study the complete set of revisions instead of sampling, trying to identify reverts accurately in Russian and Polish) and then things started to get out of control. I spent no less than 6 months trying to interact with Russian and Polish editors, only to discover that (apparently) there is no consistent way to detect reverts using comments in these communities, but just comparing pairs of revisions (eventually, out of our scope). I have also tried without success to find any factor correlated with the drop in edits from anonymous users since 2008 for the German Wikipedia (also in Polish, but not in Russian or other languages in the study, as you can see in the uploaded graphs). Nobody seems to have any clues, so far.

Besides this, at some point (late 2010 I think) the format to annotate flagged revisions operations in the logging table of the database was changed, which forced me to update in the code to import these data. A dump of a new table was also created by someone, containing information only for flagged revisions actions. However, some content was inconsistent with the information in the logging table, and I decided to continue using it as the primary data source. And so on, and so forth. As I presented in Wikimania 2010, the performance of flagged revisions is good, and no changes in the activity of anonymous users can be attributed to the adoption of this new feature.

I think you have compiled a lot of useful info about this topic, and will definitely use it to better contextualize the study (with proper attribution, of course). At this point, all the analyses are quite advanced and I will find some time to write the final report. WM-DE will decide then what to do with it. I have nothing but good words for them, since they have been patient beyond any reasonable limits with this project. The good news is that new code is now available to import this and other info, so it may help people interested in Wikipedia data analysis (see [1], in particular /sources/pages_logging.py). A new version for multi-core parsing will be ready soon. --GlimmerPhoenix (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for this response! I think there is a lot of info to think about in this, this and this. I look forward to the report :-) Thanks again! --Atlasowa (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Felipe, would you happen to know the answer to this question? – czar 10:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply