Talk:Edit count#Project link

Which project page should we link from here, and how? At the moment, there's a hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Edit count, which is the main enwiki project page about all things related to edit counts. The fact that it's linked in a hatnote implies that the link is intended for editors who have arrived at Edit count by mistake while actually looking for Wikipedia:Edit count. That would be consistent with how, for example, ANI has a hatnote to WP:ANI. If that's the main use of the hatnote here, then we'd need to mark it as a self reference (by either wrapping it in {{tl|selfref}} or by using {{tl|about}} with {{para|selfref|yes}}). If, on the other hand, the main purpose of this link is to provide further information for readers of this page, then it would be better placed in a "See also" section at the end. Thoughts anyone?

Additionally, the page as created had a link to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. I had removed it, but there's been pushback against this removal. I'd have thought this would be a no-brainer. Why link in the first place? The article is about edit counts on wikis in general (Wikimedia-related or not), and in the absence of any decent page covering the concept across the sister project at meta (:meta:Edit counting is merely a stub), it's reasonable to have a link to a project page like Wikipedia:Edit count – it has content about how that works on the English Wikipedia, and it serves as a gateway to all other other project pages about the tools for counting, the various statistics, as well as essays about the effect of edit counts on editor behaviour. Of the dozen or so such page, why single out Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits to link here? Is it of any interest to readers? Is it even of interest to most editors? To me, it looks like a clear example of navel-gazing that has absolutely no place in an article. – Uanfala (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

:The list of English Wikipedia edits per editor seems to easily make the bar for a 'See also' listing, since much of the article is about Wikipedia editor's edit counts. There don't seem to be a dozen in-house or text pages about edit counts (a few historical pages, pages about article creation, etc.), and the one listed in "See also" seems the main Wikipedia link for edit counts, the principal topic of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

:: I think the internal link under a see also header is harmless, and might be nice for readers who are actually looking for that. BD2412 T 19:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

:I agree with Uanfala. We generally don't "break the fourth wall" by linking to project pages in our articles. I would think a reader who is looking for project information would follow the link in the hatnote, the target page of which already has it in its See Also section. --Bsherr (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::That's making the reader have to dig a deep hole just to get to a topic which is directly alluded to and described throughout the page text and graphics. So the 'See also' mention seems very closely related to the page text, at least enough to get the 'See also' link. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:::I think a reader looking for an encyclopedic explanation of edit counts is unlikely to be looking for a list of Wikipedians by total edits. I think a reader looking for a help article about edit counts is unlikely to make it to the see also section of this article. --Bsherr (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::::Then again, that link is what much of this articles text and graphics are discussing and diagraming. A See also link seems as relevant as you can get to an article which itself could be described as a fourth-wall article. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::The article is about edit counts on wiki projects in general. You need several steps of narrowing that down – first to Wikimedia-hosted wikis, and then to the English Wikipedia – before you begin to approach the scope of the list. But even for that subset, it doesn't provide any meaningful overall statistics, as the list (even if taken together with its subsidiary list) only covers the top 10,000 editors. It's a poor source of data, as the vast majority of users fall outside its scope, and its main function that I can see is to provide some sort of local leaderboard. Yes, some editors are certainly interested in that, but no, this is definitely not the sort of stuff we should be serving to readers. – Uanfala (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::{{edit conflict}} The article is about edit counts generally, not specifically on Wikipedia. I'd find it problematic in this context that a link to, let's say, "Fandom editors by edit count" would probably be considered inappropriate or at best would be placed in an external links section, but yet we would have this link in the see also section. Indeed, that same Fandom link in the body of the article would contravene WP:EL. If you look at the other articles about Wikipedia specifically, very few have such links in their see also section. --Bsherr (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::Ignore all rules handles it with a hatnote to the policy, this page provides a See also link. Still say that much of the article and its graphics concerns that very link. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, just like the present article, Ignore all rules has a hatnote to a project page. It does not, however, contain a "See also" link to a list of wikipedians by the number of rules ignored, does it :) – Uanfala (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::::This ad absurdum argument ignores the fact that one list does exist, while the other does not. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::: While the article is indeed about edit counts generally, I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that the use of edit counts in Wikipedia is by far the best known instance in the world. BD2412 T 03:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::Wikipedia in generally, or the English Wikipedia specifically? If it's the latter, then that would be a good argument for moving the link to WP:Edit count from the hatnote to the "See also" section. – Uanfala (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::: This is the English Wikipedia, though. In other-language Wikipedias they call it by their local name - Beitragsanzahl, Número de ediciones, Compteur d'éditions, etc. BD2412 T 04:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::But this article isn't about edit counts on the English-language Internet, it's about edit counts generally. Linking only to English Wikipedia is an Anglocentric bias. --Bsherr (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::: No more so than the fact that this encyclopedia is written in English. BD2412 T 06:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well, the focus on the English Wikipedia is because the article creator is a native of this project and the literature available to them is likely to have had the same thrust. If we assign higher relevance to the English project, then we would likely judge WP:Edit count as topically relevant for readers, and be more inclined to promote it from the hatnote into a "See also" entry. I'm agnostic on that. But even if you see the English Wikipedia as being of central importance here, it's still beyond bizarre to be sending readers to a list of Wikipedians. Why would they be interested in it? – Uanfala (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::Some may be interested after reading an article and looking at the graphs which basically focus on the edit counts discussed and displayed at the See also link. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::So it's meant as a data source? But it only lists the top 10,000, which amounts to just 0.02% of the 41 million editors on this project. It's really poor as a source of data. – Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::::There are two images, two pie charts showing statistical information about edit counts, on the page. They both pertain to the linked entry in question. This alone should assure the See also link, and even links to the page in each caption. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::If the list is the source for the images, then this needs to be stated as a properly formatted reference. A See also section is not a repository for references. – Uanfala (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Not a reference, they just happen to be presented on that page as well. Maybe a link in the captions is appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: I think that could work as an alternative. The second pie chart is basically all that list. BD2412 T 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::: So that alternative would be moving the link from the "see also" into a reference for the charts? That sounds good, and is probably the best we can do about the chart's sourcing (the file description on commons isn't explicit, but I believe the assumption is that the chart is based on the list, which is itself ultimately bot-generated). Also, I was wondering if this second pie chart is necessary – it shows the same data as the first chart minus the bottom bracket of the 61.2%. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: I think the suggestion was to have the link in the image caption for one of the charts. BD2412 T 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I agree that the second pie chart is redundant. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::There doesn't seem to be any text in the article that relates to the pie charts. Or am I missing it? --Bsherr (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: They illustrate the last sentence of the first section: "Among human editors, it has been observed that a small percentage of editors are responsible for a substantial proportion of the total number of edits that have been made". It's hard to "illustrate" the concept of an edit count otherwise, although it would be useful if an editor in the typical range (say, 10-20,000 edits) would screenshot their own edit counter for the article. BD2412 T 17:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::The citation for that sentence references this from an article in The New Yorker: "Wikipedia may be the world's most ambitious vanity press. There are two hundred thousand registered users on the English-language site, of whom about thirty-three hundred—fewer than two per cent—are responsible for seventy per cent of the work." That's not the same data as in the pie charts. The pie charts are not themselves referenced. That makes it unsourced material. If, as it appears, they were made by an enterprising Wikipedian from the information at "Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits", that would make them original research, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The pie charts should be removed. --Bsherr (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::{{reply-to|Randy Kryn}} As you re-added the pie charts, would you care to address my unrebutted assertion above that the pie charts are unpublished original research? --Bsherr (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::That's adhering to the rules too closely, so will call a common sense WP:IAR issue because the graph, which no one disputes per accuracy, well illustrates the point of much of the article and is an explorable option for Wikipedians who happen upon this page and find out about a link they may have never heard of before. Leaving the chart (one chart and a See also link were already removed, and the one chart left aptly illustrates the text) improves Wikipedia, thus IAR status may be met. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Calling this "original research" does not make sense to me; WP:CALC has an entire section distinguishing it from prohibited OR. jp×g 20:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::@BD2412 Inspect element is your friend. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::: It would not be representative to use my edit history, for rather obvious reasons. BD2412 T 17:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::@BD2412 I thought you were talking about the counter in the preferences? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::: I was suggesting that we include a screenshot of a representative current live edit count. Not mine, because it's atypical, and I wouldn't presume to screenshot someone else's edit count for an article. If someone with a more typical number wants to go ahead and take that screenshot, I would welcome it, though. BD2412 T 18:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::"a screenshot of [...] edit count": You still did not say from which page. If you mean the preferences page, I suggested using inspect element for adjustment. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@Balon Greyjoy inviting the creator of the discussed images to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Yes, good idea, and maybe we can hold off on an edit dispute and see what the chart creator, {{u|Balon Greyjoy}}, has to add. Looking at their edit history they seem about due to log on again. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I don't feel too strongly about the matter. I do agree that these figures are original research by me; I don't think they help illustrate the point of edit counts. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

:I don't think including this as a link (in "See also" or otherwise) is a good idea. This article isn't about en.Wikipedia edit counts, it's about the general concept of edit counts in the overall realm of wiki editing. Including it would also be a recipe for mischief.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)