Thomas Dalton wrote:
Choosing a first random batch of 100, and reporting after 3 months about what happened to this group would support the radical concept of basing later choices on facts. Thus: 1. How many refused the nomination outright? (This group could be immediately replaced by new nominations.) 2. How many went nuts? 3. How many stopped editing within 1 month and within 2 months? 4. How many continued editing without using admin powers? 5. Which admin powers did they use? 6. other questions?
- How many people that didn't get chosen complained loudly about/left
completely because of/started vandalising in revenge of the unfair way admins were chosen?
A question that cannot be answered now, or as a result of this test:
How many vandals exist NOW because of the ludicrous way that admins are chosen, the fundamental discrepancy between an "anyone can edit" encyclopedia and a "only zealots need apply" adminship? Any suggestions on how to get a handle on that number?
-Rich