Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 1

Page generation
See: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians by number of edits/scripts

Summary

 * Many of the early wikipedians' edits got lost in software switches.
 * This table does not show who is most important. A troublemaker with a bot could rank high (theoretically).
 * This table *does* show who needs to "get out more"
 * Wikipedians desire a similar page but limited to the previous month/week/year/etc.
 * Wikipedians desire a similar page showing changes in rank.
 * Wikipedians want this page updated frequently.
 * Wikipedians want a similar page by number of bytes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram-Man (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 August 2003 (UTC)

Discussion
Interesting page. Generated with an SQL query?

Also, this brings up the issue again: who are the active contributors? Certainly not all the user accounts. I guess there's no point in deleting the ones not being used? Or is there? --KQ

Two SQL queries actually, since I do not know enough SQL to know whether it is possible to check the current and the old ones at once. After that I added the numbers up by hand, and used Unix 'sort' to get them in the right order.

As for deleting unused user accounts: I could imagine there would be some use in it, as it would free up the username for a new user. However, such things get important only when we have ten thousands rather than hundreds of users, I think. Andre Engels

It would be very interesting to find out who has made contributions in the last six months say... that would tell you who has probably lost interest in the project and those old accounts could be deleted in a giant housecleaning expedition. KJ

107. It's a rude awakening. But at least I am better than Larry Sanger ;-))

These counts are from the database, which didn't exist until the installation of Magnus's Phase II software. It therefore undercounts those who contributed to the project in its early days--Larry Sanger, Tim Shell, me, Magnus, and probably others. --LDC
 * Including me. :-P  (but, really, all that cut-n-paste of CIA info etc. probably shouldn't be counted.)  --KQ

A more interesting query might be "Most active in the last month" (or other similar time period)... -- Khendon
 * Yes, I agree. THat would be cool too.  --KQ 20:09 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm on the list two times, as IPs and 'myself' (possibly three times (one .xxx)). If I combine all three I leap up to 21st, how sad. User:TwoOneTwo
 * I'm on the list twice too. Emphasizes how little I leave the house, I guess.  --KQ


 * I've modified my script to combine some usernames. See below for the script & full list. --Brion 22:57 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

- Hmm. Shortly after I joined the project in January I recall hearing that Larry Sanger hit 5000 edits. Yet his total on this list is less than half that. Did UseMod and the conversion miss over half of Larry's edits or am I not remembering things correctly? --mav
 * UseMod scrapped the history of an article after a few weeks, keeping only the most recent revisions. He should definitely be higher on the list.  --KQ 21:33 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

-

What gives? I hit diff on Recent Changes for this subject page and got this error instantly;

Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /usr/local/apache/htdocs/w/DifferenceEngine.php on line 371


 * I don't get it instantly, I get it after waiting 30 seconds. --Brion 23:06 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

Except for Helga (H. Jonat), no one with 1,000 or more contributions to their name has had any trouble with NPOV violations or edit wars. (Okay, I am probably biased in favor of myself; if I'm a troublemaker, I'm blissfully unaware of this. :-)

So we can state as a general rule that it takes a thousand contributions to get the hang of NPOV. This rule shall henceforth be known as "Poor's Law of Neutrality". Now don't everyone make a fuss over me. A small statue would be okay, or an endowed chair in my name will suffice... --Ed Poor

"75 Quercusrobur 1220"- Oh God, a brutal reminder that I really must get out more often.... quercus robur

Am I calculating the user contribution count wrong? Larry Sanger's entries seem to have shrunk. --Cousin Eddie

The old list included statistics for various IP Addresses and ranges. I wonder why that wasn't added to this one. In any case, we have 84 accounts with more than 1,000 edits, which is pretty impressive. Given that some of the post-1,000 edits from September were IP Address ranges, there has been a good amount of growth. I just wish I would have created a rambot account earlier so I'd know the difference. Oh well. -- Ram-Man

Are you sure you did this right Ed? I thought for sure I've cut-back on my Wikipedia contribs in the last two and a half months, and yet I have nearly 7 thousand more edits. Andre's numbers and many other's also look inflated. --mav

Mav, you're a beast of burden! -- RM


 * Yep - I guess I'm editing in my sleep. Oh, that's right, I only sleep 5 hours a day due to Wikipedia. I wish I was like Batman and was able to only sleep 2 hours a day - think of all the extra edits I would get in! ;-) I'm hopeless and I fear you are in the same boat now. --mav


 * I'm not sure whether to feel relieved or envious that I've fallen from 10th to 14th place. On the other hand, I'd win a count of CVS commits to the software hands-down. ;) --Brion 23:12 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * Yes. CVS commits are at least as important as regular wiki edits. Perhaps a most active developer list is in order? We couldn't make any edits without the software. --mav


 * Nonsense -- some post-it notes, a little xeroxing, and the USPS would do wonders. It would just be, um, slower and more expensive. --Brion 23:46 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * LOL I would love to see somebody try to pull that off! --mav

Mav, one point of worry or relief (however you view it): You are not number 2 in number of edits between the previous list and this one... Here are the accounts with over 3000 edits between September 21 and December 10 (number of edits on previous list, number of edits on this list, difference):

1. RamMan               677 ( 90)  44654 ( 1)  43977 2. Olivier             1593 ( 45)   8732 ( 7)   7137 3. maveric149         13956 (  1)  20004 ( 2)   6148 4. Andre Engels        7405 (  2)  12281 ( 3)   4876 5. Tokerboy            1677 ( 40)   6423 (10)   4746 6. Lir                  ---         4271 (19)  >4034 7. Rambot               ---         4203 (21)  >3966 8. Renata               489 (114)   4209 (20)   3720 9. Derek Ross          1631 ( 44)   4503 (18)   2872 10. Ed Poor             6086 (  6)   8957 ( 6)   2871 11. Tarquin             3872 ( 12)   6378 (12)   2506 12. Zoe                 3982 ( 11)   6367 (13)   2385 13. KoyaanisQatsi       7150 (  4)   9420 ( 4)   2270 14. Tzartzam             ---         2275 (42)  >2038 15. Axel Boldt          7348 (  3)   9386 ( 5)   2038 16. Isis                2766 ( 21)   4794 (16)   2028 17. Damian Yerrick       ---         2091 (50)  >1854

--- are accounts/people who were not on the previous list; they had at most 237 edits at that time. Andre Engels 23:59 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Although 6,000+ still seems like a lot. --mav


 * Hmmm.. You do a lot of editing though. That time period above is almost the entire length of time i've been a part of wikipedia (minus the 677 from the first couple of weeks).  Now I have a hard time estimating it, but I would estimate the number of non-bot edits i've done would be somewhere around 6,000 +/- 2,000.  And you do a lot of manual edits! -- Ram-Man


 * Arghhhh! #2 after RamMan!! Even though a big part of my edits are minor ones, that's a lot. Maybe it's time fo me to keep my Wikipedia time under control... olivier 08:39 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)


 * There is no way to control it. I thought I had things under control but I actually increased my edit rate! Wikipedia has me in it clutches. There is no hope! ;-) --mav


 * Oliver, if it makes you feel worse, I probably would be only #2 or #3 in the above list if you took out the bot edits. So basically you have been most active in the last couple of months. -- Ram-Man


 * Oh, you mean Olivier! Phew, you had me confused for a moment there - I thought you were talking to me! :) But of course, I'm only at at no. 162 on the main chart, with my measly 436 edits. I know, I'm far too lazy... -- Oliver PEREIRA 03:51 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)


 * RamMan, I already knew!!! :-( olivier 06:03 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

--

Could someone update the list? I don't know how. 01/20/03

172

-- I understand that it lists cumulative activity over time, not current activity. It still needs to be updated though, being complied last over a month ago. 172


 * Leave a message on User talk:Ed Poor or User talk:Brion VIBBER. They have DB access and can run the query. ---Eloquence 12:30 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for updating this, whoever did it, but damn it! I've gone down! Now only 166th... I must stop pottering about and actually write some stuff... -- Oliver PEREIRA 00:11 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * You get more hits with pottering about than with writing one good article, unless you save a lot. Some people ahead of you on the list got there by doing both, saving one comma at a time. BTW, do talk pages count? Ortolan88


 * Yes, this includes _all_ edits ever made on this wiki (minus those made to deleted pages which can no longer be counted). It's "most active Wikipedians", not "most productive Wikipedians". ;) --Brion 03:35 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

If ex-users Lir and Vera Cruz are the same person, that would put them at #11! --Uncle Ed
 * See Brion's comment immediately above. That comma-adder, Koyaanis Qatsi

I'm User:Tzartzam and User:Sam Francis -- so that puts me well into the top hundred.... :S -- Sam 18:21 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * If you like, I can reassign your old edits to your current user account. Or, I can have the script that generates this list combine them just for counting purposes. --Brion 18:46 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

- You should count activity in all wikipedias with database (that would get me quite a bit :) ) Actually, just kidding. --AN 19:06 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
 * Add the mailing lists to that! :-)) Eclecticology

I still like the idea of having a list of most active in the past month. That would take care of the inactive users. In the past month I've done less than 300 edits, but I still have 1st place. The active per month would be nice to know. -- RM

Psst, I don't suppose anyone wants to update this page again, do they? I want to see if I've gone up yet. :) -- Oliver P. 16:18 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes i think it is time to updtae this list again, but i think i have gone down :-( -fonzy


 * I really hope I'm going up... I've done 50 edits already today, and it's only just gone 04:00 in the morning... :) -- Oliver P. 04:01 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone have a script? I can run Perl, Python or Ruby scripts. -- Taku 04:24 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

There's a perl script further up on this very page, but it might need updating... You need to know which usernames belong to the same person, and so on... which I suppose means finding out all all Lir's pseudonyms, which may be quite a huge task in itself... ;) -- Oliver P.

This still has not been updated. -fonzy

While the list should be updated because old data is misleading, but do we really need this kind of list? The table simply says number of updates which means really nothing. For example, my rank probably goes up only because several times I just put ja interlanguage link, which should not be considered decent contributions. Sure we want to give correct credit for those who truly contributed wikipedia just like other encyclopedias do. But mere number of changes mean almost nothing. thus, why don't we simply aboundan this table? -- Taku 01:58 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It's a fun list. I like seeing how well I'm doing. Eclecticology 04:33 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

I've just updated the list. And hurray, I've actually gone up this time! I haven't quite made it to 2,000 edits yet, but last time I hadn't even got to 1,000.

Anyway, I edited Brion's perl script above to add the following equivalences:-


 * "Tzartzam" => "Sam Francis",
 * "Tokerboy" => "TUF-KAT",
 * "Tucci528" => "TUF-KAT"

Are there any others we should be aware of? I decided to ignore the Lir = Vera Cruz = Susan Mason controversy for an easy life. :) By the way, as a point of trivia, this is the first time I've ever edited and run a perl script. I'm learning perl at the moment, but hadn't got round to trying it out in practice... I don't really understand it all, but I trust Brion to have got it right. :) -- Oliver P. 07:09 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Its amazing i have gone up :-) - fonzy

Anyone want to update again? -fonzy

--- I agree with fonzy. It's time to update this list.

172


 * It would also be interesting to see the results if this were run at Wiktionary. &#9774; Eclecticology 23:55 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * -), this still hasn;t been updates though, btw Ec, your the "MAV" of wiktionary :-). -fonzy

-- Rambot 32319 vs Maveric149 31807


 * Yikes! Since this was updated two months ago I guess that means that I've passed-up Rambot! --mav 11:00 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

You prob have passed the Conversion script too by now -fonzy, and i wish someone would update this. -fonzy


 * I hope nobody starts to think I'm a bot... --mav


 * I do not believe artificial intelligence is this sophisticated yet. --Menchi 08:49 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think a mention of the vast numbers of edits and added content by anonymous and/vagrant editors is entirely appropriate here. Let us give credit where credit is due... Martin


 * And this list does have IP numbers in it. The sentence stated that the collective mass of anonymous users are one user called "Anon". Yet this list has individual users. You simply can't compare the two. --mav

Martin makes a good point that can be used for promotional purposes. We want the general public involved, including those people whose only edit may have been to fix a simple obvious typo. A statement saying that xxx edits have been made by other signed-in users, and yyy edits have been made by anonymous users would promote the idea that we are a People's Encyclopædia. &#9774; Eclecticology 15:46 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a cool stat but Martin's previous sentence was just plain wrong (however good the intent). --mav


 * I was merely anthropomorphising all the anonymous Wikipedia contributors into a single figure by the name of "anon", just as Britannia anthropomorphises the collective population of Great Britain. To claim that such a metaphor is "wrong" is to fail to appreciate the anti-realist approach taken by much of what I write... :-) Martin

It's been two months since this list has been updated. 172
 * Indeed, Frecklefoot, the last ranking user is at 773, but the page still says 634! MB 19:36 15 May 2003 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I'll do it. Who else do I need to add to the list of equivalences? -- Oliver P. 15:49 25 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm, no-one it seems. Time for the update? Pcb21 13:26 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, there are people. It's just that no-one has bothered to reply... I have:
 * "Anonymous56789" => "LittleDan",
 * "BigFatBuddha" => "º¡º",
 * "Vera Cruz" => "Lir",
 * "Susan Mason" => "Lir&quot;,
 * "Dietary Fiber" => "Lir",
 * "Shino Baku" => "Lir",
 * "Like a Virgin" => "Lir",
 * "Ril" => "Lir",
 * "Zxcvb" => "Lir",

Any others? Yes, okay, I'm stalling for time, because I haven't got to grips with the Perl script yet. Last time I tried running it, it gave loads of error messages, and made º¡º's post count go down when I added his alias, so I'm completely confused and putting off thinking about it until after my exams... -- Oliver P. 13:38 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

200
It says there are "200 Wikipedians" in the first line, but there are only 197. The list only goes up to 199, which includings a bot and the conversion script used months ago. --Menchi 10:19 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

well 198, people who have tied share joint place, you will notce that 2 ppl at the time shared 199th place. -fonzy PS please someone update this.

If someone tells me how to query the database, I would be more than happy to update this by hand untill the script is working. MB 14:11 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Select "Query the database" from the list of special pages in the dropdown menu on the top of the screen. --Eloquence 14:14 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The perl script above says that you should save the results of a query in variables cur and old, how do you do this? I am not familiar with perl.  MB 14:20 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, you would have to save the output and feed it the format in some way. No idea which format it likes, I didn't write it and the person who did didn't bother to document it in any way. It might want the MySQL dump format which, AFAIK, you can only produce easily with direct access to the database and not through the web interface. Now you know why this thing doesn't get updated :-) --Eloquence 14:26 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I did the 2 query's listed in the perl script above, but they returned mostly ip addresses, and didn't resemble a list of top users at all. Any suggestions?  MB 14:41 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What the Querey does is gives aliost of all the users/ip addresses and teh number of edits, so bascily you just ave to put them in order of most edits then cut the list at 200. -fonzy


 * Fine, but when I did the query, most of the ip's that showed up were 1 edit and such. MB 19:58 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

yes as dial ups ips change all the time, so a person on 1 ip address will do 1 edit then their may not be another edit on that ip address for a long long time. -fonzy


 * Fine, but how do all these 1 person edits returned from the query get turned into what is currently the Most active Wikipedians page? MB 20:09 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * You need login access to get the raw SQL dump for the Perl program to work its magic on. It's pretty much only something developers can do. -- John Owens 21:29 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, no. Any sysop can do it. You can go to the SQL query page, and type in the two SQL queries mentioned in the comment lines in the Perl script, and the output from those queries is then the input to the Perl script. Oh, except that you have to change the "100" (in "LIMIT 100") to some really big number in order to get all the edits. (I expect that's what went wrong with MB's attempt.) I did the last update, and I'm not a developer. Which is fortunate for everyone concerned. :) Unfortunately, I ran the Perl script without checking for warning messages when I did the last update, and this time when I ran it with the warning messages turned on, loads of warnings appeared. So now I'm not feeling confident enough to trust the output any more... Would someone who knows more about Perl than I do like to volunteer to work out what's going on...? -- Oliver P. 00:59 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Note: I've just added the "LIMIT" thingy and the extra equivalence thingies to Brion's perl script above. -- Oliver P. 01:06 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I knew that, mostly, but I simplified a bit, maybe too much. I wasn't sure setting a limit greater than 100 would work, and I wasn't sure about the output being in a format where copying it into a file for the Perl to work on. Now, lemme see about the syntax, then.... -- John Owens 15:36 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Oliver, how did you capture the output from the sql queries for the perl script? Copy and paste?  If so, what?  If not what?  WHAT!?  :)  MB 15:55 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I've tried it out without a high limit, since I don't want to abuse the database that badly during its busier hours, and it looks like it could be copied & pasted from the tables you get back. I'll try it with the high limit later tonight. I think I've got ideas why it would give warnings, too; for instance, try using "if exists ($equivs{$2})" instead of "if($equivs{$2})", maybe declare the variables with "my" or whatever, etc. I'll work it out when I can get a good sample, assuming my copy & paste buffer is big enough (if not, I suppose I could do it in a number of smaller chunks). -- John Owens 17:25 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Grrr... wasn't around the past two nights to do this. Hopefully I'll be around tonight... I checked Traffic, looks like the best time would be around 5-7 UTC. -- John Owens 19:40 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Great! I would really like to see us getting this stream-lined soon, that way your non-PERL type can just run the perl script and update the page.  MB 17:43 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that I got hold of the output by clicking on "Save Page As..." in my browser, saving the page as a plain text file, and then manually chopping off the irrelevant bits at the top and bottom in a text editor. That defeats the old copy & paste buffer size troubles. -- Oliver P. 18:15 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the page, Mr. Starling! Hmm, from 82nd to 74th... Going in the right direction, but must try harder... -- Oliver P. 13:42 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"BLIMEY!" I am 30th 8-| -fonzy


 * Well done! :) I will catch you up, though, I promise... ;) -- Oliver P. 07:47 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

O-YEAH, well we will see about that :-p. -fonzy

Most active Wikipedians update
Moved from Village pump on Thursday, June 12th, 02003.

The moment everyone's been waiting for: Most active Wikipedians has been updated. Some highlights: Mav has overtaken Rambot and the conversion script, and now has almost 40,000 edits to his name. Zoe has moved up from #9 to #6, overtaking AxelBoldt and Koyaanis Qatsi. Lir, our most active troll, has moved from #30 to #10. Patrick jumped from #27 to #18 by clocking up another 3,700 edits. TakuyaMurata is a rising star, jumping from #54 to #23, now on 6,523 edits. Not that it's a competition or anything. :) -- Tim Starling 05:13 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Yikes! I promise I'm not a bot nor have ever used one. :) --mav


 * Ah, so that's his plan... -- Wapcaplet 11:59 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please note that my contributes are also due to that I can rely on those who copyedit my misspellings or gramatical errors. -- Taku 03:57 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

End moved text.

My!! I notice I'm on the list at 141, and I'v only been here since February (I Really should get a life) G-Man 22:33 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How did Lir manage to rise in the ratings when she was banned so long ago - before the last update, if I'm not mistaken? Deb 22:58 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it's because some of his pseudonyms' edits have been included under Lir's name on this chart. --Camembert


 * Yep, that's right. He confessed to being Vera Cruz, Susan Mason, Dietary Fiber, Shino Baku, Like a Virgin, Ril, and Zxcvb. So I added them to the list of equivalences. I'm sure even that list isn't complete, though... -- Oliver P. 01:01 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course, Lir also makes about 10 minor edits per actual edit because he doesn't use the preview function. --Eloquence 01:03 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think this is appropriate. Her edits ought to be included under the separate names she uses.  I resent the fact that she shows up as an "active" Wikipedian just because she causes a lot of hassle. Deb 17:04 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * "active" does not have any implication of quality :-) User:anthere


 * Perhaps this is a mistitled page? It should be "Wikipedians with the most edits". Martin


 * Ah yes. Good point, Martin. Lir certainly has made a large number of edits. :) -- Oliver P. 17:32 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"She" is Adam Rinkleff, chess champ, blogger and student at Iowa State University. I think that was announced on a mailing list somewhere. -- Tim Starling 16:10 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

oops sorry. "never edit a page with big table - repeat after me - never edit..." Hitting my head against the wall. Won't do it anymore. Promise.


 * Neither will I, at least I hope I have learned my lesson. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 16:39 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wow, I'm at 124 after only two months! Either "go me", or I really need to get out more. Sigh. My 1700 edits in, er, 50 odd days makes for, er, hey, only about thirty odd a day. That's not so bad, is it? Is it?? john 08:23 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * You apparently are just a bottomless ballon of information letting out the air to educate the world of its history! :-) --Menchi 09:06 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Another (more?) interesting statistic would be "Wikipedians by number of new articles created". This should be calculable by looking at the history for each article. -- Derek Ross


 * Any chance we could actually create an article the contains the script used to generate this page? There are a number of modifications to the perl script given but no clear locations where it is.  In addition, were the recent updates to the page using this script?  I assume so.  Why not just make a page where the most updated script resides and then anyone can create the page?  We could also have something for said "Wikipedians by number of new articles created". -- Ram-Man

Why not rank Wikipedians by the the total bytes they added (as measured from the diffs)? Not counting reversions, if possible, to help exclude edit wars. Steven G. Johnson

-

Out of curiosity - is there any chance that someone with database access will update the table again? I'd like to see whether I actually appear in the list or not. ;) And, lest anyone points it out, yes, I know I could download the database dumps and do it myself, but the download alone would take me so long that by the time the stats are generated, they'd be too old to be interesting anymore, so there. :) -- Schnee 01:27, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You've made a little over 700 edits, so you're not on the list yet. Keep working at it :) -- Tim Starling 01:39, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * I tried downloading the database but when I tried to load the old table from the dump I got a MYSQL error saying that it was too big or something. If anyone knows how to fix this, i'll download the tables and do the update.  (I did not run out of diskspace).  For that matter, I might even work on some of the other requested items. -- Ram-Man 02:25, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if somebody with a broadband connection could set-up Wikipedia at home so that that he or she can post weekly updates to our disabled special pages. It's not possible to do this on the website itself anymore. I would do it but I'm a bit busy with other things. --mav 02:31, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I can do some of that if it doesn't require the old history. I had no trouble loading the cur table (which is much smaller).  -- Ram-Man 03:33, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * Tim: That's weird. According to my own reference file (cut-and-pasted from "My contributions" over time) I'm at 1102 edits. Of course, that includes some temporary articles (mostly for Wikiproject Elements) that are now deleted, but that shouldn't be 300 edits... still, you're right, the current list only goes on to somewhat more than 700. Something I'll have to check out, I guess. -- Schnee 11:00, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC) P.S. in any case, I surely will keep working... ;)


 * UPDATE: Actually, it gets even weirder. Checking out lists a total of 1050 edits, which sounds much more like my figure without temporary article edits. A bug of some sort in the Wikipedia software? -- Schnee 11:06, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- It's been almost two months. It's time to update this list. 172 11:39, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * If a monthly update is 'expected' then why not just show monthly totals, so defunct high contributors get ditched and newbies get some encouragement. ²¹² 11:49, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to download the tables and do an update when I get it all downloaded. It might be a day or two, but I'll update this page. -- Ram-Man 03:26, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Heh. "This table *does* show who needs to "get out more" " Every month or so I take a four or five day trip somewhere (see user:maveric149/Images). I suggest others try to do the same to preserve sanity. Too much Wikipedia without a break is a bad thing. --mav

and i am one of those "people". - fonzy 8-)

"An list in unformatted form is available weekly here." should be "A list in unformatted form is available weekly here." JWSchmidt 14:08, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Negative sides of taking time off?
Well, I took a five day break last weekend, and am taking another one the next weekend. I guess this means I have a snowballs chance in hell of making the next list 0:-D -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick


 * I find the sensation of a snowball of items on my watchlist particularly rewarding. :-} Either that rewarding feeling or I just randomly ignore chunks of it. Yeah, either one. ;-p --Menchi 18:09, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Update
Well the time has come after two months: The page is updated. Now that I am set up to do it, I will try to run updates at least once a month. -- Ram-Man 22:56, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Could you, by any chance, be persuaded to do weekly updates when the database dumps are updated? ^.^ I'd like to help out with that myself, too, but haven't been able to get MySQL to do tables of more than 4 GB in size on Windows XP. -- Schnee 15:24, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No: 144. That's Gross!
Honestly I scrolled blind to the bottom of the page, and started scrolling up. Cross my heart and hope to die, by the stump and stone, I did think my strategy of staying just below the radar for this update had worked (well, yeah, I was slightly dissapointed at the same time, failing would have been a nice thing in some perverse way too). But then after actually passing my username on the way up (August 8 for the update, and my contributions show about 1400 right now), scanning it again on the way down: ***KERBLAM***. Geez, 1777 is almost as nice a number as 144. Befudledly yours -- Cimon


 * Well you "only" need just over a thousand edits to get on the list. That is not *that* much for a dedicated user! -- Ram-Man 23:52, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Depends on how much you've been contributing, I'd say. -- Schnee 19:00, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Whee, I'm on the list! Yeah! ^_^ -- Schnee 19:00, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pizza Puzzle is Lir
Why is Pizza Puzzle listed separately from Lir? The link was proven. 172 19:01, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Is this really the case? I have not followed this, so I don't know where the proof is.  In any case, the scripts need to be updated to handle for any equivelences. -- Ram-Man 22:24, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * Here's the proof: here 172 22:56, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll make sure that the future updates are correct. -- Ram-Man 23:14, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

Why a list?
I believe that the attention given to this page is misplaced. Who really gives a flying fuck how many edits someone has made? I can't think of a much poorer metric from which to calculate social standing and while its presence is tolerable, the attention it is given is at odds with the supposed egalitarian nature of the Wikipedia. Kat 19:17, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Who says it is getting a lot of attention. There have only been four comments made about it since it was updated. There are plenty of pages getting way more attention that this one. No-one is claiming this is a list of Wikipedians by social standing and there are quite clear explanations at the top of the page stating exactly what the figures mean and do not mean. If you don't happen to care about it, you don't have to read it. Angela 19:41, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It shows me the diversity our English WP. The first third active contributors include (in no particular order): two native speakers of French, one of Mandarin, one of Dutch, one of German. We even have a speaker of artificial languages! In addition to Americans, we have one Australians, three Brits, one Irish, one Taiwanese, three Canadians, and the four Europeans. We have people who love Wikipedia very much, but those who use it for their own twisted purposes, namely, the Troll his/her endless duplicates. We have those who stayed and are still strong, but also those who left and may not ever return. We also have people who we know nothing much more than their user names. We have open gays and open heteros. We have a woman, a person who calls him/self a woman, and a man who wants to be a woman [a public open statement].


 * And this is just the first 30 that I looked thru, if you go down further. You'll find more interesting people. So I find great pleasure in going thru the list every once a while, and see what new faces pop up, and say to myself: "Woa! You're not like me at all! And you're not Osama-evil! I like it!!" I think there are others who love to be "shocked" like this too and know that we do have at least one, one thing that we share: Wikipedia. --Menchi 20:05, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Assuming, arguendo, that "the attention given to this page is misplaced," then why on earth would someone draw even more attention to it with a colorful post?  Moreover, in answer to the question posed, many Wikipedians do, in fact, care how many edits they have made and how they measure up against other Wikipedians in this regard, and that ain't gonna change.


 * As for the issue of whether the attention given to this page "is at odds with the supposed egalitarian nature of the Wikipedia," that is a conclusion that is based upon very weak inferences and ultimately rests upon a number of unproved assumptions. One can easily indict *some* -- or even many -- Wikipedians as being elitists, but the unlimited freedom to fork that all Wikipedians enjoy makes such an indictment irrelevant.  The only *real* challenges that can be made to "the supposed egalitarian nature of the Wikipedia" are those that can pass the scrutiny of Jimbo Wales, and even those challenges are limited by the freedom to fork. -- NetEsq 20:19, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Many people by nature are motivated by competition. This list may not *in reality* mean much but psychologically it breeds competition which only causes people to add more to Wikipedia.  Maybe too much! -- Ram-Man 22:21, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

Anonymous IP
"Anonymous IP" isn't a Wikipedian. It's lots of Wikipedians! Is this just the total number of edits made by people who have not been signed in? I don't think they should all be counted as one person. I think that the script previously counted separate IP addresses as separate people, which is more accurate. Not that I'm just trying to go up by one more place, or anything like that... ;) -- Oliver P. 11:31, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You could do that, but it is not particularly helpful to know that a single IP address did something because that really could be more than one person. So what do you say about that?  A single IP address can be lots of Wikipedians, and so is "Anonymous IP".  My case for having this combined category is that it tells us how much work is being done by those users who are not logged on.  And it is a lot!  I think it is very interesting to know whether, as a whole, the number of anonymous edits is very high or very low.  This is especially true for the monthly version of this page.  Oh and "Conversion Script" is really a whole bunch of edits from lots of different people. Not to mention all the other edits that are missing because of various software updates and so forth.  -- Ram-Man 13:30, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * This is all true... But on the whole the page compares individuals, so I think it's a bit misleading to have entries for large groups of people mixed in with entries fro individuals. (So I suppose I am arguing for "Conversion script" to be taken out as well...) I agree that it would be interesting to know how the number of edits from anonymous IP addresses compares with the number from logged-in people, so perhaps it would be nicer to have a separate table at the top comparing "Anonymous IP" with "Logged-in user". Although this would be more effort, I expect... By the way, I like the new monthly version. :) -- Oliver P. 15:32, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If the conversion script is attributing an IP# to a user, do they get edits added by any anynomous person who happens to use that IP? I would think it would be better to add some specific number to their count; rather than adding anything from said IP. Pizza Puzzle

I was wondering how often (generally) this page is updated, and when the next update will likely be. I want to see if I'm still on top. ;p -- Anonymous IP


 * At SQL query requests, Tim said "Maybe after larousse comes back online. -- Tim Starling"


 * Does this mean 'soon' ? I have done a lot of edits since summer, and I want to know just how many... :) -- Anonymous IP

Update?
Hey, now that the new database server and everything is in place, how about updating the list again? I'd like to see how I rank. ;) -- Schnee 00:54, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The top 50 people who have edited in the article space are updated here each time the database is backed-up. Maybe you could ask to have that increased to 100 or even 200. --mav 02:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * As of 4 Jan 2004, the link is working. Thanks to whoever fixed it. (And, yes, I'd like to see it a little longer too.) Rossami
 * That link doesn't include edits made under alternate names which users formerly used. *cough* Lirath Q. Pynnor

I do have a list of 200 editors on User:Dori/Sandbox that a developer did of the last 10000 edits (not too sure now of this number). Dori | Talk 17:59, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Michael
So Michael has made over 1000 edits, and is in the top 200? Despite his hard ban? I shake my head in amazement....

Arno 03:55, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * When every edit you make is reverted so you can make it again, it must be pretty easy to rack up the edits! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:24, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but I just find his sheer persistency amazing. Arno 04:35, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Top 500
BTW, if someone does intend to update this sometime, maybe it would be a good idea to include some 500 top contributors at least. We have a lot of new active contributors... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 11:17, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. A lot of users on that list seem to rank far lower than they should...  Pakaran. 15:03, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. of edits
How does someone get to know number of edits he's made ? Jay 10:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's pretty much a case of clicking on the "my contributions" link on the left menu and counting. There are various ways of making it a little easier - one way is to click on one of the "view" numbers (across the top of your contributions list) and change the "offset" value in the address until you find the end point.  Another is to cut and paste the list of contributions into a text editor and number the lines (or the last page of your contributions if they are many).  But the quickest way is for me to tell you that you have made 1480 edits as of now .  Good work :) -- sannse (talk) 20:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * sannse thanks for the steps. Was wondering if there is an easy way to get the number of edits information. Like you go to the "my contributions" page and the number is there displayed for you. It should be an inexpensive database query I guess. Jay 08:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2 things that can be mentioned on the page :
 * 1) whether the list is prepared manually or automatically
 * 2) when was the last date the list was updated

Jay 12:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The page does say "compiled with data from August 8, 2003". As I understand it, the list is prepared manually from a database query.  That's why it is so out of date.  The regular stats have better information -, although that doesn't include non-active Wikipedians or edits to non-article pages (and I'm about to slip off the end... Aghhh!) -- sannse (talk) 21:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be more beneficial to update these numbers manually, from the stats site? Anyone could do it... Dysprosia 21:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That page lists only people who are currently active and have made more than 6000 main article space edits. People would like a longer list than that, I expect. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)