User blog comment:Shadowmaster/Stats/@comment-5072107-20160827224825/@comment-453181-20160828142653

Bob at no point mentions any other reason for deactivating chat. If you're right about this, and wiki activity isn't the ultimate reason he deactivated chat, then that raises an even bigger problem: That Bob deactivated a major wiki feature without a vote without even telling us why. I think it's our right as members of the wiki to know why major decisions are being made for the wiki (actually, it really is our right to make such a decision ourselves; there's a reason the MCC exists ), especially if it's a decision as impactful as disabling chat, so that we can also work towards a resolution of the problem. One member of the staff enacting their own questionable solution to major problems that they don't even address is not by any means a solution that is likely to work. I'm going to say that I still have enough faith in Bob's integrity to believe that upkeeping wiki activity was the only reason he deactivated chat, and move on to what these numbers suggest about chat.

We might not know if chat's deactivation is the sole factor in the clear differences in edit totals, but what we do know is this:


 * 1) Since chat was deactivated, mainspace activity has not increased; rather, it has decreased. Bob states in his blog that he believes the time spent in chat is time that could be "better-spent improving articles or producing content". It's not unreasonable, then, to assume that this was his aim in deactivating chat - to increase the amount of time users spend improving articles or producing content. Whatever the reasons behind it, that has not happened in the three-week period since chat's deactivation; in fact, we're really seeing the opposite here, what with a 26% decrease in mainspace activity and a 37% decrease in uploads or moves - in other words, content is being produced or improved even less. You could say that these numbers don't suggest enough, and that 26% of a 31.7-per-day average isn't that much. But I think even then, we still know well enough to conclude that the wiki has not been benefiting from this change in the way Bob intended, because there very certainly has not been an increase in mainspace activity.
 * 2) Since chat was deactivated, blog/other non-mainspace activity has increased by 90%. This is something that I think we simply can't chalk up to coincidence. A near-doubling of blog activity is something that doesn't just happen on its own; while it might not be the direct consequence of chat being deactivated, it would make sense for it to be so given that it's now the only on-wiki method for users to communicate. Now that users are just using time that they could be using to focus on mainspace activity for blog activity instead, it really just creates the very same problem that Bob was trying to address by deactivating chat; only now, mainspace activity has taken an even more visible hit.
 * 3) During Period 2, wiki activity actually doubled. This really says many things about this whole situation.
 * That chat was not the sole factor behind lack of wiki inactivity. The fact that wiki activity was able to actually double in spite of chat still being available suggests that the problem was not chat, but, as you suggested, something we have failed to address.
 * That users did not want chat to be deactivated. Bob offered that chat would not be deactivated if wiki activity increased by a significant margin during the week-long period remaining in the month of July. During this time, wiki activity increased by quite a significant margin (which, of course, raises the question of why chat was deactivated even after this clear increase...) . I think it's easy to infer why - users got more active because they didn't want chat to be removed. This is the motivation they were given, and their reaction shows how, well, motivated they were. If users seemingly did not want chat to be deactivated (a notion supported by the responses of almost every user I've talked to since), and mainspace activity decreased since chat was deactivated...well, I hope you can see why those two are linked.
 * That even a week is ample time for the wiki to react to changes. You suggested that three weeks after chat's deactivation is not enough time for us to collect accurate data, but it's clear that the wiki was able to double up its activity in 11 days' time; really, the increase in activity came quite immediately after the deactivation of chat was announced. Sure, there's other factors at play, but what we can conclude from this is that the wiki can double up its activity in even a days' time given sufficient motivation. Needless to say, deactivation of chat was not sufficient motivation.
 * 1) Since chat's deactivation, at least 4 major, users of the wiki have formally announced their departure. This is something that's not supported by the data in the tables, but I think it nevertheless might be linked to the same problem. Within a very short period recently,, , , and all announced their departure from the wiki. At least two of them were active participants in the chat beforehand, and another outright criticized the deactivation of chat. Again, I'm sure chat was by no means the only factor in their departure, but I don't think it's a major stretch to say that chat's deactivation had something to do with it.

I hope you can understand why I think that chat's deactivation, while enacted with good intent, has done nothing good for this wiki. If, as he claims, Bob did it to increase the improvement of articles or the submission/creation of content, it's clear that it hasn't accomplished its aims; one could even say that it's accomplishing the opposite. If Bob had other, unannounced reasons for deactivating chat, I still find it hard to believe that chat's deactivation did anything that Bob intended for it to - unless he just wanted to kill the wiki faster.