Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits

This Wikipedia page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Withdrawn, 22 September 2013, see discussion.
keep, 26 July 2012, see discussion.

Trivia

Trivia: Changing all commas to tabs in the CSV required 9 min 16 s processor time (Pii233) using PFE. This was the most demanding task I ever asked my computer. :-) --Valmi 01:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Number of lists

Today there is only one list, not the three indicated by the introduction. Robin Patterson 05:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the intro to reflect this. Paul August ☎ 06:23, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not on list

Just an odd note, although I had 140 edits between joining wikipedia (Jan 3 2005) and Jan 18 2005 I'm not on this list. Is there an explanation for that? [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent ^†_∈]] 06:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been here since last November and now have over 1100 edits (a few hundred per month), but I'm not on the list either. --Idont Havaname 01:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rq to update this more often

I think this list would be maybe even more useful than the # total edits, to reflect the current state of WP. However, if its updated only every 5 months, it loses quite a bit of its interest.... — MFH: Talk 11:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page really needs to be updated. It hasn't been for a year and a half. Dixonsej

Query

I note that this is number of wikipedians with over 1000 edits by number of recent edits. In other words, the page title is deceptive. Is there any way of adding in data from all Wikipedian editors? Or is that too big a task? Grutness...wha? 01:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It must be 1000 edits in the article namespace too - I think my thousandth edit came before June 1, but my thousandth edit in article space wasn't until earlier this month. --Idont Havaname 03:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only the main namespace, I didn't do the all namespaces listing. ~~If everyone prefers, it wouldn't be hard for me to just do it by wikipedians who have had 1000 or more edits. Is that what you're asking? If not, it currently lists all~~ Wikipedians edits in the main namespace, minus the ones with 0 edits since 1 June. ∞Who?¿? 20:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok strike that, yes, its seems only the ones with 1500+ edits, I used the data from Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, as it was done with a SQL query to the db. We were attempting to get the data from the dumps, but were having trouble with errors in the dump or a gzip error. I could ask for a list of the entire SQL query so I can add everyone. ∞Who ?¿? 20:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Minor Query

Are minor edits included?--Knucmo2 19:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sorry took so long to respond. ∞Who ?¿? 04:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sep update

I will update this page as soon as I get the data from the new dump. Awaiting for a developer to run the script for WP:1000. ∞Who ?¿? 04:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

where am i?

I did about 90 edits in september but im not on the new list. did i do something to upset someone (pout)? or is it only those whove done lots of edits overall? BL kiss the lizard 12:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for September 2004? Because I think I did hundreds, possibly a thousand, edits in September 2005--T. Anthony 18:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some bots are ranked

I updated this list.

Gary King informed me about the list at my talk page. The following is copied from my talk page.

FYI User:VoABot II, USer:XLinkBot, User:BetacommandBot, and a few other bots at WP:WBRE is a bot but is still ranked, by mistake? Gary King (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is not necessarily a mistake. They are unflagged bots. I can easily find the flagged bots in user_groups.sql.gz of the database dump with computer program. Some of the unflagged bots are listed in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/unflagged bots. I started ja:Wikipedia:編集回数の多いウィキペディアンの一覧 November 2006. That page has ranked users including unflagged bots since then. This page and zh:Wikipedia:最多贡献的用户 also do so. I hesitate, for whether unflagged bots are ranked or not at this page. --AutumnSnow (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I marked about a dozen bots by placing (bot) after their name. I only did a search for obvious bot names. But I didn't go through and correct the rankings. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the rankings. --AutumnSnow (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be updated again

This wasn't updated for close to three months. I'd like to see how I rank on the list! :-) SchfiftyThree 21:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im confused

It says I have 411 edits total. But I have 8,343 at the time of this post. So does this thing take for ever to update or what? Adam Penale (talk)

This is a list of recent edits. It means that you made 411 edits during the specified time period. But yes, sometimes it does take a while to be updated. Oxguy3^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical function?

Curiously, this list comes close to but fails to follow a familiar linguistic relationship. Normally, the usage of the most common word (e.g. "the") is a certain number, the second most common (e.g. "of") is 1/2 that, the third most common (e.g. "and") is 1/3 that, and so on. (From Google I can see this is described at [1] but I can't access that source) Do Wikipedians work the same way? Well, sort of.

If you ignore the top 500 contributors on the list, then within 10% you can describe everyone with a simple numerical relationship: 750,000 / your number of recent edits = your rank (for the current edit). Use maybe 720,000 if you use the non-bot human ranking system from this page. So that is fairly consistent with (sort of) theory, though I have no idea where the tail of this distribution heads beyond #5,000.

But the top 500 contributors are generally below predictions. For the top-ranked bot there are fewer than 100,000 edits * rank; for the next six less than 200,000, for the next 14 less than 300,000. I suppose some bots might conceivably be linked by author to make a bigger number, but really the whole front end of the curve is low, so you couldn't change that by tinkering with the definitions of bots.

It would be interesting to see the function from this database carried out much further, so we'd know where all the editors with fewer than 100 recent edits come out. I presume that we could tell all editors outside the top 500 that if they double their number of edits, they will approximately halve their rank in the listing - but it would be best to have the data in hand. Wnt (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you update this list?

I was trying to update the list with the newest database dump, but the instructions here didn't make any sense. Could someone who knows how to update the list please fix those directions? I couldn't understand much of it (not because I didn't understand the Java code, but because I didn't understand which dump files I needed for which things and where to save the files and which Java programs to run and what they would actually and etc). Thanks! Oxguy3^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly easy if you know how to compile and run Java. The only painful part is downloading the database files, and waiting for it to complete running (which can take hours). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like he had some specific problems with the instructions, Plastikspork... Gregcaletta (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. I'm not sure how to help. A good first step would be get some practice compiling and running Java programs. I actually found the instructions very easy to read and follow. However, updating the list takes quite some time, which is why it is done so infrequently. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't my name showing up?

I've made a lot of contributions lately (more than 53, which is the lowest number), yet I'm not showing up on the chart. Why not? The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 16:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been updated since March by the looks of it.--Michig (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

Does it still update. It looks like its from March. Why does it take time? Should we update it ourselves? Joseph507357 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be updating it manually, so I've reverted your change. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in rank numbering

I'm ranked in 1708th place in the list. Another user is also in joint 1708th place having exactly the same number of edits as me. The person below me should be in 1710th place, but he/she is actually ranked at 1709. Numbers should be skipped where users are jointly ranked. Bazonka (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar year rankings

Why not compile this list each January for the previous calendar year? This would be considerably more meaningful and easier to compile. Yours aye, Buaidh 16:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of recent edits?

The beginning of this article should state the definition of "recent edits". Is it the number of edits since the previous time the list was updated? The number of edits in the last year? Or some other metric? Teri Pettit (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory it's for the 30 days leading up to the data compilation, consistent with Special:ActiveUsers, but this list hasn't been updated in a long time. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this list is misleading

This list is misleading because the top names will inevitably be bots. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bots or not, this list is misleading because it's no longer updated properly. Recent edits have all been manual fiddles to one or two entries, without bothering to update the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updating

The last updated list on the page is from March 2011. This seriously needs an updating after passage of 16 months on that werldwayd (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty useless as it stands. I've sent it to WP:MFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mojibake

If someone ever updates this, some of the usernames appear as Mojibake and therefore link to non-existant users. Some to try to fix if it's worth it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two years out of date

This page is two years out of date. Can somebody please attend to it? David Cannon (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is more than eight years out of date now. If only someone perseverant could attend to updating the list. -- Hamid Hassani (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]