Topic on Talk:Wikistats 2.0 Design Project/RequestforFeedback/Round1/Site architecture

If not, what structure do you think would better organize Wikistats metrics and content?

Yes, sounds (almost) good. Contributing and Reading might have some interactions however, e.g. I may want to compare # of edits and # of pageviews

Yes.

Works for me.

Works for me, it makes a lot of sense.

@Milimetric (WMF) - from a WMF teams point of view, I need think about what my goals are/what I would need to come to the stats page for. I typically come here to get a general sense of population statistics about the projects. One of the things that is often missing, for example, is number of editors by country or region. I am not sure if/how that fits into your design?

Another thing I could think about that I would really like to know that is important for our work: How many users are administrators or other special user types? This information is useful for having a high-level understanding of curation/governance side of the projects in terms of community engagement. Each project has a different list of user types as well. If this is data is too granular for stats.wikimedia.org, perhaps we might think of a separate dataset to get this data.

@EGalvez (WMF), the WMF is not one of the primary audiences, to make sure Wikistats keeps its community focus. Editors by country is a sensitive metric because used in combination with other data we provide it could allow de-anonymization attacks.

Good note about community makeup in terms of user types. This will be interesting to look into, though probably hard to figure out cross-wiki.

As for community makeup in terms of user types: see also this Wikistats report Analytics/Wikistats/DumpReports/Future per report#State of the wiki.2C current values for many metrics across one project .285.29, section 'Access'. I almost never got feedback on the report, and it gained few votes. But that might be because it lacked focus (by design, it wanted to cover almost everything on high level).

I think these top level categories are perfectly sensible.

For me, the distinction between "Content" and "Contributing" was not clear initially. It now makes sense, though.