Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

srv50 t1_jarr281 wrote

Logically edits increase as content increases. It’d be nice to see this related to content. Has user activity increased per unit of content ? Or has activity just grown with content?

20

inactiveuser247 t1_jas0yu1 wrote

I think your logic is off. If there was a direct correlation that would mean that Wikipedia shrinks during the second half of the year and shrank overall between ‘07 and ‘10

3

ShelfordPrefect t1_jatanev wrote

You have the causal relationship the wrong way round - they are saying more content results in more edits, but that doesn't mean fewer edits means less content

5

inactiveuser247 t1_jatb7pl wrote

So if edits go up, then content must have gone up, but if edits goes down, then content … goes up?

−2

Hardlyhorsey t1_jaujgll wrote

As content goes up it drives edits up. New content needs edits in order to reach peak accuracy and it’s more to maintain.

More edits does nothing to drive new content, so it does not go both ways.

Total content logically goes up in most scenarios or most of the time, but if it goes up slower than usual you would see a decrease in the amount of edits.

They are also not saying “if edits go up content must have gone up.” They’re saying “if content goes up, it tends to increase the amount of edits.” They actually specifically say this doesn’t work the other way.

2

divinitia t1_jauqhln wrote

If you fill a jar with peanuts and then stop doing so, does the number of peanuts in the jar start decreasing?

2

inactiveuser247 t1_javh3kp wrote

Can you tell how many peanuts are in the jar by counting how many times you take a peanut out of the jar, dust it off and then put it back?

0

divinitia t1_javkibt wrote

You never take a peanut out of the jar, since I never mentioned doing so.

1

inactiveuser247 t1_jawgefw wrote

Sure, because your analogy isn’t equivalent to the original issue.

0

divinitia t1_jawhai7 wrote

But...it...is?

Just because you stop doing something, doesn't mean the reverse starts happening.

That's the equivalence.

1

srv50 t1_jas6fdo wrote

I asked s question. But. In a world where everything changes linearly you are right. I don’t live in that world.

1

inactiveuser247 t1_jatbor8 wrote

Doesn’t have to be linear. But if edits go up as content goes up and edits go down as content goes UP (I don’t think it’s defensible to say that Wikipedia shrank), then there isn’t a meaningful correlation.

0

burnerman0 t1_jatzoi6 wrote

OC is wondering what the correlation is. Why are you assuming it's linear?

1

mfb- t1_jasbuur wrote

Content grows with activity. Early on both grew rapidly, now content keeps growing but activity has declined a bit.

1