Tool | Target | Longitudinal analysis? | Data on | Source | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SQL's Tools | Editor | No | User groups Actions by type and number Automated or script-assisted edits by number (for users with <25k edits) Total edits Edits by namespace, by number and % Top 10 User Talk edits Top 25 mainspace article edits |
[2] | Unicode issues |
SQL's Tools | Article | No | Page created by Page created on Number of edits to this page Top editors for page |
? | |
Wiki Dashboard | Editor Article |
Yes | For editor, top 10? edited articles, with number and % of total edits For article, top 10? most active editors, with number and % of total edits Both with longitudinal graph |
? | Lag issues; article's images obscure data |
Revision counter | Article? | No | Broken? | ||
Kate's Tool | Editor | No | Total edits Edits by namespace by number First edit Distinct pages edited Image uploads Deleted edits |
? | |
Interiot Tool 1 "wannabe Kate" | Editor | Yes | Total number of edits number of unique pages edited Earliest edit Average edits per page Edits by namespace by number Edits per month, by edit summary or lack of it Most edited articles by namespace |
||
Interiot Tool 3 | Editor | Yes | User group Edits by namespace by number First edit Distinct pages edited Image uploads Deleted edits Avg edits/day Edits/page (avg) Edits by month, breakdown by namespace |
? | "Due to legal concerns, several features have been turned off until a lawyer can be consulted to ensure that the tool complies with German privacy laws" |
Liste des articles | Editor | Yes | Edits in the encyclopedic namespace Editions in distinct articles in encyclopedic namespace List of articles creations in encyclopedic namespace sorted by date |
? | |
User contributions | Editor | No | Editor's contributions from various Wikimedia Foundation projects? | ? | |
Yet Another Edit Counter | Editor | No | User ID Registration date First edit Total editcount Distinct page edits Page/edits (avg) Deleted edits Edit count per namespaces Log actions |
? | |
Edit counter | Editor | Yes, but | User group Edits by namespace by number and % First edit Distinct pages edited Image uploads Deleted edits Avg edits/day Edits/page (avg) Edits by namespace, pie-chart Edits by month, breakdown by namespace Edits per day Edits by hours |
Opt-in required for longitudinal analysis | |
Wikirage | Article | Most recent actively edit articles? | |||
Wikichecker | Editor Article |
For editor: User group Registration date Edit count Link to block log Pie chart of edits by namespace Plot of edits by time of day and day of week Edits by day of week Edits by hour Days of activity Average edits count in active day Most frequent edit day Frequently edited pages For article: Started on Total edits to Edits per day Edits by anons Edit count of the top 10% frequent users Frequent editors Frequent editors also edit these articles |
Allows analyzis of last x edits, but time range has to end with current day Flash Player required for some output? Some wikirage capability? | ||
Gtool | Editor | No | Total number of edits | ? | Just that? |
Flcelloguy's Tool | Editor | Yes | Lots, but... | ? | External (javascript) I was never able to get it to work, buggy... |
AmiDaniel's EditCounter | |||||
Interiot Tool2 |
Barnometer™ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
n00b | involved | been around | veteran | seen it all | older than the Cabal itself |
XMAS Gift
Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Salad'o'meter™ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
put barnstars here (no thumb or direction) | |||||
n00b | involved | been around | veteran | seen it all | older than the Cabal itself |
Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world
this article is ((unreferenced)). Please help fix this and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world]]
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Formatter|format]]
NOTE: now official proposal is at Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes
To be moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) soon
Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, a guideline for all manners of surveys and votes on Wikipedia, is deeply flawed in its existing rules and fails to adress several important issues. A prime example is that in Gdansk/Vote it allows both sides of the dispute to claim they are immunie from 3RR rule, as well as disputing the very vote results. As there are proposals for new votes similar to the Gdansk/Vote, I feel we must fix the policy ASAp - otherwise, those votes will be nothing but a giant time loss for everybody involved, including poor participants of RfC, RfA and admins enforcing 3RR rule, who - judging on Gdansk/Vote results - will soon be asked to chose sides in various interpretations of the vote. I think the following changes have to be implemented:
Well, that's all I can think of now. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A couple of points:
I had a point by point response interleaved, and then John turned up and ever so callously edit-conflicted me, while making most of the points I wanted to make. I would warn of increasing formalism though: The more rigid and formal the system, the easier it is to game. The same goes for making majority-rules sufficient for certain cases. With reasonable editors, any proper compromise should be able to get something close to consensus: If editors aren't reasonable (which I suspect may be the problem in the polish naming issue), this isn't something we can solve with surveys anyway, and the more editor-oriented methods of problem solving should be used. --W(t) 20:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
I stumbled across this by accident & not by invite, so I hope you don't mind if I add my say to this. (If not, well at least consider what I have written.)
Thanks for listening to me. -- llywrch 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1. I agree, we have a problem here. However, I am not sure I understand your solution. This guideline suggests how to create a survey. Enforcing the results is a separate issue. As for enforcement, yes I agree. We have to devise a procedure of enforcement.
2-5. I agree.
6. I think if a vote would influence the article, the note should be added to talk of these articles. It's true that many readers don't read talk pages. However, a see talk edit summary supplied with reversion would point the attention there anyway.
7. Agree, except for the obscure topics that generate little interest. A couple of times I voted for the page to be moved (and it was moved) with only two support votes and zero oppose votes. For topics that would generate little interest, setting a minimum isn't necessary. However, such issues would probably not reach the stage of surveys to be taken. So, I agree with you.
8. I agree
9. I didn't follow the details of Gdansk vote, so I neither support nor oppose its repeating.
10. Agree, we need a rule. I think a milder version than complete abandoning of 3RR would suffice. For example, reverts of WP:Point edits, or edits taken against the survey would not count towards 3RR if the offending edit was allowed to stay in an article for 1 hour or more (or 1/2 an hour). And I do think that WP:Point edits should be governed by the same rule (it is probably a separate policy issue). In recent Kijow->Kiev edit war, I was very tempted to revert Space Cadet and Witkacy (no offence to them) at once every time. I had to constrain myself and make an effort on trying to convince. Other more short-tempered editors, may rush into immediate reversions, allowed if we through out a 3RR rule and the edit history will multiply in no time. Some short time delay in this frame would help cool off some heads and allow other users to intervene and revert.
Generally, I fully support the overhaul you suggest. Regards, -Irpen 02:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I fully support this overhaul as well. Most of the proposal seems very reasonable. If I can pick a point I am not comfortable with, I would say the quorum of 10 voters for a valid survey is too low. If there is some controversy and only 10 people are interested in it, they should be able to reach some kind of compromise among themselves (maybe even hold an informal vote of their own). Balcer 06:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's attitude to rules and guidelines is ambivalent, and we like it that way. We prefer flexible, fuzzy guidelines for surveys because surveys and polls aren't the method by which Wikipedia makes decisions. We do that by discussion and reaching a consensus--a compromise we're all reasonably happy (or not unreasonably unhappy) with. The best a survey can do is to reveal an underlying consensus, and at worst (and indeed, usually) a survey simply polarises views and makes consensus more difficult to find.
In short: the survey guidelines aren't broken, they're intended to be fuzzy. Surveys aren't binding, they only serve to demonstrate a consensus when one exists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal, and also feel the need to have a rule /guideline implemented. As for the specific points:
Overall, the proposal from Piotrus is useful and needed. What are the next steps? We would need to prepare something to vote on. The above points are not yet structured for an easy to do vote. Piotrus, what's your plan? -- Chris 73 Talk 06:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus, this below is a quick translation from Ukrainian of the review you asked for from "Nasze Słowo", wydawany w języku ukraińskim tygodnik mniejszości ukraińskiej w Polsce, located at http://free.ngo.pl/nslowo/vydavnycha_vitryna/ukrajinci_pid_wawelem.htm . This variant is quick and unpolished but you will get an idea. It was kinda interesting for me since it is written in diaspora Ukrainian and the choice of words sometimes seems unusual. I might have misspelled some names in reverse transliteration back from Ukrainian. The translation is below. --Irpen 08:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
In the Krakow "Library of the St. Vladimir Foundation" series a new book appeared in 2004, "U stop krolewskiego Wawelu. Spolecznosc ukrainska w Krakowie w latach 1918-1939" by Tadeusz Filar. This may be the first attempt to analyze the Ukrainian community in the interwar period of the last century. It should be noted that it is a supplemented Ph.D. work defended at the Dept of History of the Jagiellonian University;.
Ukrainian community (article uses "khutir") in Krakow had its own civilian institutions, that supported the national identity of Ukrainians in Polish environment. Spiritual and religious dimensions of the community life was organized by Krakow Greek-Catholic parish founded as ealry as 1794.
After 1918 the spirit of the community was also supported by the Orthodox garrison church.
The Jagiellonian U.had a huge impact on the life of Ukrainian Krakow. Many of the Ukrainian youth from Halicia studied there, and there were several Ukrainians with great scientific achievements and academic authority among the instructors.
In the first part (there are 5 of them) the author attempts to show the genesis of Ukrainian community in Krakow to show subsequently the problem of the minority in the context of political, social and economical situation on Poland of 1918-39, taking into account the attitude of the 2nd PR toward the Ukrainian question.
The second part describes the period of the return of the Polish Independence in 1918, that brought the liquidation of "Prosvita". The attempts of renaissance of cultural Ukrainian organizations were just made in the period of the general stabilization of the Polish state after 1924.
The best years of development of Ukrainian institutions in the city are described in the third part of the book. At the time, in academic community an "old" Ukrainian emigration from Halicia appeared (B. Lepky in Jag. U. and I. Feshchenko-Cholivsky in Mining Academy). This emigration provided assistance (including financial) to the former military men of the Ukr. People's Republic to join the student community (e.g. L. Hets). Ukrainian students of Jag. U. created their own organization - Ukrainian Student Union, and then started to work with legal and underground Ukrainian political parties (UVO and OUN), and also with Polish Socialist party, which after the May coup of 1926 resulted in Police surveillance of the Ukrainian community activists. Most organization, including the Union of Ukrainian women were under the threat of liquidation which is described in the following chapters.
The author got the information for some chapters from the state archive of the Jag. U., and from the district court where the notes are preserved about "інвіґіляція" (I do not know this word) of OUN members, which resulted in an increase of arrests, especially after the murder of the Minister of internal Affairs B. Piracky. This even resulted in the closure of Krakiv chapter of OUN.
The author, when describing the Ukrainian community of Krakow, used extensively the archives of the Jag. U., where the works of Prof. Bogdan Lepky are deposited. The archive of Rakovicky cemetery helped to collect the materials about the camp of the interned in Dombju. The author also used the materials from Ministry of internal affairs and PZPR, Ukrainian press of the interwar period: "Краківські вісті" weekly, which appeared in 1940-56. Nashe Slovo, Nasha Kultura and Ukrainian calendars and emigration printed editions were also helpful.
It's worth noting that the book is valuable not only as the source of deep information about Krakow Ukrainian community, but also the graphics of the cover was made by Ukrainian artist Igor Kusyk from Krakow, and for the computer layout we should thank Oleg Aleksijchuk from St. Vladmir's foundation.
Subject: Developer help needed for General User Survey
Hello guys,
The General User Survey project (survey of Wikipedia users, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_User_Survey) is in dire need of somebody who would help us with the coding part - the questions for the survey have been mostly ready for months, but we cannot implement the survey with our (lack of) technical skills.
It was suggested (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Researching_Wikipedia) that our close-to-2-years (!) delay in getting General User Survey project up and running is due to researchers discussing the issue among themselves on a forum nobody else reads (i.e. Wiki-research-l) - so I am bringing the issue here.
Finishing the GUS project would give us not only a better theoretical understanding of ourselves (demographics, motivations, etc.) but also generate reliable practical information on how Wikimedia software and procedures are valued by the users.
Thank you for your help,
PS. I've tried sending this message to the list few days ago but I am pretty sure it got eaten by some net bug along the way, so I am trying it again. I apologize if it anybody receives it the second time.
PS2. Just recently another interesting research project did cross a milestone: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiXRay
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
We librarians flatter ourselves that we know a thing or two about organizing information. It's time we stepped up and contributed to Wikipedia: not just to its content but to its structures and technologies. This project page is intended to provide a rallying point for these activities
The members of this WikiProject have come together to make some suggestions about how Wikipedians may contribute to articles about books and literature in general.
Welcome to Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki. This wiki was created to be a one-stop shop for great ideas and information for all types of librarians. All over the world, librarians are developing successful programs and doing innovative things with technology that no one outside of their library knows about. There are lots of great blogs out there sharing information about the profession, but there is no one place where all of this information is collected and organized. That's what we're trying to do.
If we all—librarians, readers, writers, publishers, etc.—pulled together, could we create an online library that included every book, every journal, every instance of every type of content a traditional library might contain? Even if we failed to reach that grand goal—almost as grand a goal as Google’s vaunted mission (“to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”)—we could make something wonderful in the attempt.
vs
Other: The Lord of the Rings, Uncle Tom's Cabin
Let me stress three points, clarifying issues that in the past seemed to confuse some reviewers.
Please don't reply here but a the nomination page, from which a link presumably led you here. Thanks, Piotrus
1) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk
2) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk
3) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk
4) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk
5) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk
6) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk
6a) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6b) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk
6c) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6d) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6e) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6f) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6g) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6h) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6i) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6j) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6k) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6l) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
6m) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
7) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk
8) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk
9) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrustalk
10) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrustalk
11) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk