[OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010Submitted by ptgorman t3_11h22gl in dataisbeautiful
inactiveuser247 t1_jatb7pl wrote
Reply to comment by ShelfordPrefect in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
So if edits go up, then content must have gone up, but if edits goes down, then content … goes up?
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.
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?
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?
divinitia t1_javkibt wrote
You never take a peanut out of the jar, since I never mentioned doing so.
inactiveuser247 t1_jawgefw wrote
Sure, because your analogy isn’t equivalent to the original issue.
divinitia t1_jawhai7 wrote
But...it...is?
Just because you stop doing something, doesn't mean the reverse starts happening.
That's the equivalence.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments