Alexandru Micu (2020-05-05). "Meet the Internet's unsung heroes: Wikipedia's human collaborators". ZME Science. Retrieved 2020-05-06. Wikipedia actually has a pretty interesting page dedicated to tracking the most prolific authors on the site. All contributors are equal in the eyes of the site and its userbase, so this list isn't about giving anyone bragging rights.
Table 1 and Table 2 are confusing, at best, and absurd, at worst.
I would tend to think, and I think most people would think that "
Registered editors by edit count (only successful contributors)
"
is a subset of "Registered editors by edit count (all registered accounts)". So I am, and I think many others would be, very puzzled to see that in many rows the subset seems to contain more members than the set.
For example, having exactly ten edits means one is among the "top 2,330,000 of all users", and also among the "top 2,804,000 of all contributors" in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. This seems to be a mathematical impossibility.
Polar Apposite (nice user name), what do you think about Table 2 being moved to the Table 1 slot? Would that unconfuse the issue. I'd personally prefer that. It's like, you can sign up for a marathon but not run it. If you don't run it you can't go around saying "I competed in the All-State Marathon". Editors who have edited are Wikipedian editors, those who haven't are not yet Wikipedia editors. Maybe a commonsense viewpoint. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally just switch the two. Table One has its uses per individuals who have taken the time to sign up as potential editors, although most have not edited. The present table 2 seems to have much more information relevant to this page, and gives a clearer picture of who edits the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've no particular objection to their being swapped, but it seems like swapping deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is the seeming contradictions between the tables, and the lack of clear meanings for terms like "editor" and "user" (I had thought the users were our readers).
A row for zero edits would be useful, I think, because you'd get to see the big picture, i.e. the 46 million total (of "users" ?), and it would set everything else in context nicely, I think. For example, where it says,
"1 edit...top 30% of all users...top 14,000,000 of all users... ("That's more than") 70%",
the implication is that 14,000,000 is thirty percent of all users, which implies that there are 46,000.000 users total. And every other row has the same implication if you do the math. So I think, for the sake of completeness, the zero edit row should be added, and boxes marked "not applicable" wherever that is the case, perhaps with a footnote explaining why it is not applicable. Polar Apposite (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New column
@Legoktm:@0xDeadbeef: Would it be possible to add a new column to the table with the editor's first year of edits, pulling data from either user creation or a user's first edit? Here is an example: Cards8466416:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, but I wonder generally who are aware of this. Not me, for sure. Anyhow, I will ask one or the other of them if they can take a look. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is there are very few editors that are both capable and willing to troubleshoot, fix, and generally babysit any bot doing these tasks. To quote another editor: You can't just put Toolforge jobs on autopilot and expect them to run forever.[1]DB1729talk19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and the Foundation has how much money and how many tech workers to support Wikipedia? I've never understood why our volunteer bot creators and maintainers can't instantly call on assistance from Foundation personnel, at the very minimum. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the Foundation collects massive donations to assist Wikipedia, and, sometimes like this, it may need assistance. If I'm wrong and they are on call 24-7, willing to help and willing to fund old and new bots, good to hear. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this page isn't on my watchlist (it now is). I merged and deployed the fix and it's updated and should continue to do so. I will be honest that out of all the database reports, this is, at least in my eyes, one of the least important ones. HaleBot is collaboratively maintained, if people want to pitch in and help I'm always happy to help guide/tutor/etc. Legoktm (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears only 3-4 editors (Catfurball, Mr.choppers, Derek R Bullamore, me) regularly check or notice when the page stops updating. I can pitch in, but do I need to run a server locally to test any changes, or will my work always be on another server? Jay 💬05:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The /age timestamp reads August 8 right now, but since the replag (I don't know what that is, I am just throwing around terms used by others) is 185 hours I guess it is moot. @Legoktm: I am not a coding kind of person, but if there are little things for me to learn I am always interested in picking up a new skill, however narrow. Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers: See WP:REPLAG; to check it, see the section "Is there replag right now?", which provides this link - in that report, look for the row beginning "enwiki.". It's at 190 hours 26 minutes as I write this, which means that reports run from a database that is nearly eight days out of date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add a hyperlink to the profile of number 2 user in this list, BrownHairedGirl (User:BrownHairedGirl). I was curious about her because her name openly suggests that she is a woman and I was at first disappointed because I thought she didn't have a profile. SophiaBZhou (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SophiaBZhou: Hi, the list is generated by a bot, which means any changes would be overwritten. As ~WikiOriginal-9~ indicated, links are only done for editors who have edited in the last 30 days.
I was saddened by this. I have not thoroughly reviewed the discussion, but my high-level interpretation is that BrownHairedGirl is an extremely highly productive editor, but that other editors believe that this editor has substantially violated community policy & guidelines. I hope that BrownHairedGirl appeals the ban after the 1st 12 months has elapsed, & will once again become a productive editor with a willingness to seek out & work within consensus. Peaceray (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
