The number of admins on the English Wikipedia may possibly have peaked, and the number of active admins is 20% down on its peak of a couple of years ago.
Dec 2009, Jan 2010 and February 2010 had only 19 successful RFAs between them, with December and January both equalling the previous all time low of 6. March 2010 is not yet over, but with less than 7 days left and no-one running, it looks like 2 is a new record monthly low for RFA, and 15 a new record low for a quarter.
Those who are becoming admins are mostly the tale end of the classes of 2006/7, as we currently have only 34 admins who started editing in 2008, and only 4 from the class of 2009.
Are other projects experiencing a similar phenomena?
What are the likely results of a dwindling number of admins, and a growing wikigeneration gap between admins and other editors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_by_month
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:24 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com wrote:
The number of admins on the English Wikipedia may possibly have peaked, and the number of active admins is 20% down on its peak of a couple of years ago.
Dec 2009, Jan 2010 and February 2010 had only 19 successful RFAs between them, with December and January both equalling the previous all time low of 6. March 2010 is not yet over, but with less than 7 days left and no-one running, it looks like 2 is a new record monthly low for RFA, and 15 a new record low for a quarter.
Those who are becoming admins are mostly the tale end of the classes of 2006/7, as we currently have only 34 admins who started editing in 2008, and only 4 from the class of 2009.
Are other projects experiencing a similar phenomena?
What are the likely results of a dwindling number of admins, and a growing wikigeneration gap between admins and other editors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_by_month
Regards
WereSpielChequers
Thanks for bringing the data up here. I hadn't noticed the trend this year yet.
Fundamental question 1 - Do we have enough admins? Fewer may not be a problem, or it may be a huge problem.
Fundamental question 2 - How long are admins from each set elected staying active? We've had a total of 1841 promotions, of which 870 are still active. I'd almost like to go through each admin's history, from account creation to adminship to end of active adminship (even better, month by month edit and admin activities) to see how long we're keeping people.
This isn't hard statistics, but I don't know where all the source data is to try and do the data reduction on it... Ideas, or info sources?
WereSpielChequers wrote:
What are the likely results of a dwindling number of admins, and a growing wikigeneration gap between admins and other editors?
Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard expected of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years?
KTC
On 25 March 2010 20:45, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard expected of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years?
And because going through a continuously ratcheted-up gauntlet is rather too demeaning for people to consider worth the effort?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 25 March 2010 20:45, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard expected of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years?
And because going through a continuously ratcheted-up gauntlet is rather too demeaning for people to consider worth the effort?
Given that WikiProjects generally will have a better idea of the character and contributions of participants (compared to those whose idea of RfA is an extended box-ticking process), I'd like to see projects look around and nominate some of their stalwarts who don't yet have the mop and bucket.
Charles
On 26 March 2010 08:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given that WikiProjects generally will have a better idea of the character and contributions of participants (compared to those whose idea of RfA is an extended box-ticking process), I'd like to see projects look around and nominate some of their stalwarts who don't yet have the mop and bucket.
Anecdotally, I see a lot of people decline the opportunity because the RFA gauntlet is so obnoxious.
Phantomsteve's question (length of active use for admins as opposed to non-admins) is an excellent one, though, and numbers well worth running (i.e. I would if I knew how to).
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 26 March 2010 08:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given that WikiProjects generally will have a better idea of the character and contributions of participants (compared to those whose idea of RfA is an extended box-ticking process), I'd like to see projects look around and nominate some of their stalwarts who don't yet have the mop and bucket.
Anecdotally, I see a lot of people decline the opportunity because the RFA gauntlet is so obnoxious.
Looking around, reform of RfA seems to have been thought of seriously in 2006, but perhaps not since. [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching]] has offered one solution: is this not being productive? One thing that occurs to me is that a self-test page could be useful.
Charles
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project. It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this undergo.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
WereSpielChequers wrote:
What are the likely results of a dwindling number of admins, and a growing wikigeneration gap between admins and other editors?
Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard expected of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years?
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 25 March 2010 20:51, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project. It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this undergo.
I think "death" is overstating it. Many things show rapid growth followed by a small decline before stabilising. That's what I think is happening with enwiki (the rate of decline in many metrics has massively reduced compared to just after their peaks). You are, however, right to state that what we're seeing with admin numbers is replicated by most other statistics. It would probably be best to look at the ratio of active admins to active Wikipedians. Since both groups have shrunk since around 2006/2007, the ratio may have stayed roughly steady.
Yes, "stagnation" is far more accurate. Thing is, it used to be a source of pride to tell your real world associates that you're a wikipedia admin. You'd even put it on your resume. Now, it's a bit of an embarassing secret and you definitely would not raise it in a job interview.
On 3/25/10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 March 2010 20:51, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project. It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this undergo.
I think "death" is overstating it. Many things show rapid growth followed by a small decline before stabilising. That's what I think is happening with enwiki (the rate of decline in many metrics has massively reduced compared to just after their peaks). You are, however, right to state that what we're seeing with admin numbers is replicated by most other statistics. It would probably be best to look at the ratio of active admins to active Wikipedians. Since both groups have shrunk since around 2006/2007, the ratio may have stayed roughly steady.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13 May 2010 07:07, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, "stagnation" is far more accurate. Thing is, it used to be a source of pride to tell your real world associates that you're a wikipedia admin. You'd even put it on your resume. Now, it's a bit of an embarassing secret and you definitely would not raise it in a job interview.
o_0 Citation needed. I've been amazed how it's become increasingly a talking point on my CV over the years. (I put it in "other interests" at the end.) People *like* Wikipedia.
- d.
On 05/13/2010 12:29 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 13 May 2010 07:07, David Katzdkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, "stagnation" is far more accurate. Thing is, it used to be a source of pride to tell your real world associates that you're a wikipedia admin. You'd even put it on your resume. Now, it's a bit of an embarassing secret and you definitely would not raise it in a job interview.
o_0 Citation needed. I've been amazed how it's become increasingly a talking point on my CV over the years. (I put it in "other interests" at the end.) People *like* Wikipedia.
Same here. When I first became an admin in 2004, the usual reaction was, "Wikipedia? Never heard of it", but now I put it on my CV when applying for academic jobs, and it usually becomes a talking point. I think being heavily involved in *the* main source of information for a large portion of the internet-using public is and should be an interesting sort of thing. At the very least, I've had lots of interesting conversations at academic conferences from academics who are very curious but very confused about Wikipedia, but relatively few who have unredeemably negative opinions (the few tend to be from the "aristocratic academic" sort of personality, shocked that anyone without a PhD is allowed to write things).
-Mark
o_0 Citation needed. I've been amazed how it's become increasingly a talking point on my CV over the years. (I put it in "other interests" at the end.) People *like* Wikipedia.
That they do. People might write it off in conversation, but secretly, when they google that obscure term they heard for the first time earlier that day, they aren't going to skip by the Wikipedia entry (which will probably be top).
Yes, "stagnation" is far more accurate. Thing is, it used to be a source of pride to tell your real world associates that you're a wikipedia admin. You'd even put it on your resume. Now, it's a bit of an embarassing secret and you definitely would not raise it in a job interview.
For my part I wouldn't dream about telling anybody but my closest friends that I edit Wikipedia. More than anything, it's just very geeky :-).
AGK
A couple more questions to which I don't know the answer:
1) What is the total administrative workload now compared to previous periods?
2) Is there a mean period of activity for editors, and do we reduce the number of new administrators (or the period during which new administrators are active) by demanding longer tenure at RfA?
Nathan
On 25 March 2010 21:03, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
A couple more questions to which I don't know the answer:
- What is the total administrative workload now compared to previous periods?
The peak was probably back when we sorted out the fair use issues. I'd say that beyond that it's pretty typical.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:48 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 March 2010 21:03, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
A couple more questions to which I don't know the answer:
- What is the total administrative workload now compared to previous periods?
The peak was probably back when we sorted out the fair use issues. I'd say that beyond that it's pretty typical.
Typical to what period of time? Presumably the anti-vandal bots, huggle and the abuse filter cut down on the need for administrators working in that area, as an example.
On 25 March 2010 21:55, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Typical to what period of time? Presumably the anti-vandal bots, huggle and the abuse filter cut down on the need for administrators working in that area, as an example.
Abuse filter perhaps but the others if anything increase the demand for the use of block tools.
On 25 March 2010 21:55, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:48 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 March 2010 21:03, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
A couple more questions to which I don't know the answer:
- What is the total administrative workload now compared to previous periods?
The peak was probably back when we sorted out the fair use issues. I'd say that beyond that it's pretty typical.
Typical to what period of time? Presumably the anti-vandal bots, huggle and the abuse filter cut down on the need for administrators working in that area, as an example.
Reverting vandalism has never been an admin job, it's blocking the vandals that needs and admin and the anti-vandal bots don't help with that. There are tools that add the block templates to user talk pages automatically, which helps, but that's about it.
On 25 March 2010 23:10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 March 2010 21:55, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:48 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 March 2010 21:03, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
A couple more questions to which I don't know the answer:
- What is the total administrative workload now compared to previous periods?
The peak was probably back when we sorted out the fair use issues. I'd say that beyond that it's pretty typical.
Typical to what period of time? Presumably the anti-vandal bots, huggle and the abuse filter cut down on the need for administrators working in that area, as an example.
Reverting vandalism has never been an admin job, it's blocking the vandals that needs and admin and the anti-vandal bots don't help with that. There are tools that add the block templates to user talk pages automatically, which helps, but that's about it.
Remember that admins used to be the only ones with a quick rollback button, so they did do more cleaning up vandalism. Would be interesting to look at the trend before and after that was split off to its own right.
Pete / the wub
Pretty much. That's more or less why I quit the project.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project. It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this undergo.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
WereSpielChequers wrote:
What are the likely results of a dwindling number of admins, and a growing wikigeneration gap between admins and other editors?
Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard
expected
of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years?
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Are you saying that a _declining_ number of administrators means a _growth_ in bureaucracy? It would normally mean the opposite, either a loss of control, or that the ordinary members were taking the function upon themselves. What I see is a greater degree of control and uniformity, not driven by those in formal positions of authority.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty much. That's more or less why I quit the project.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project. It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this undergo.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
WereSpielChequers wrote:
What are the likely results of a dwindling number of admins, and a growing wikigeneration gap between admins and other editors?
Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard
expected
of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years?
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We need to remember that correlation does not imply causation here, which I think is what David is slightly hinting at. There are probably many other factors in admin decline as well, including increased popularity of Wikipedia (which leads and has led to a lot more problems, good and bad), increased questioning of literally every decision made, increased criticism (general and specific) of adminship and administrators, higher RfA standards, etc. The list goes on.
-MuZemike
On 5/26/2010 6:34 PM, David Goodman wrote:
Are you saying that a _declining_ number of administrators means a _growth_ in bureaucracy? It would normally mean the opposite, either a loss of control, or that the ordinary members were taking the function upon themselves. What I see is a greater degree of control and uniformity, not driven by those in formal positions of authority.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Ryan Delaneyryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty much. That's more or less why I quit the project.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, The Cunctatorcunctator@gmail.com wrote:
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project. It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this undergo.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chanktc@ktchan.info wrote:
WereSpielChequers wrote:
What are the likely results of a dwindling number of admins, and a growing wikigeneration gap between admins and other editors?
Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard
expected
of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years?
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:34 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that a _declining_ number of administrators means a _growth_ in bureaucracy? It would normally mean the opposite, either a loss of control, or that the ordinary members were taking the function upon themselves. What I see is a greater degree of control and uniformity, not driven by those in formal positions of authority.
If you assume that administrators are identical to the bureaucracy or some non-shrinking proportion thereof, then that does look like a falsehood.
If you assume that administrators reflect rather the number of committed long-term contributors, and their numbers wax and wane pretty independently of the need for administrators, then that makes sense. Little kills enthusiasm and participation as surely as bureaucracy. Why are so few even trying for adminship?
(I remember being VP of a taekwondo club in college; I decided to get us a locker for our gear, which we had club funds for. The paperwork and circumlocutions nearly destroyed my merely college-student enthusiasm, and made me seriously consider purchasing the damn locker myself. This would've been possible because in meatspace, there are no bots, scripts or policy wonks who would've noticed the sudden appearance of a locker and objected.)
Indeed, aside from cutting off the branch we're sitting on, bureaucracy diminishes the need for admins. Admins, at their best, embody the old benevolent dictator or {{sofixit}} or IAR spirit - not mechanically applying guidelines and deleting or not deleting, but judging based on all factors. Bureaucracies on the other hand, seek ever more automation and de-humanizing of the process. Consider WP:PROD. I used to clear out PRODs myself, and I know that some admins who did similar work took the PROD process as a reason not to think - if the PROD has been unchallenged for several days, then it must be deleted. There were good reasons to not be mechanical; some articles were vandalized and then prodded, or deliberately edited down, or were reasonable articles. But there you have it anyway.
You only need 1 admin to delete a few dozen or hundred PRODs; even fewer, if the occasional suggestions for admin bots go through. You need many more admins to read through a few hundred AfDs and ponder the right decision.
If the increasing bureaucracy idea is right, we should expect our contributor base to shrink and especially to see fewer edits by new users survive.
This is the case.
New articles are down significantly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_growth
Edits and new users are down, and reverts are up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis
Felipe Ortege's thesis mentions:
“In the first place, we note the remarkable difference between the English and the German language versions. The first one presents one of the worst survival curves in this series, along with the Portuguese Wikipedia, whereas the German version shows the best results until approximately 800 days. From that point on, the Japanese language version is the best one. In fact, the German, French, Japanese and Polish Wikipedias exhibits some of the best survival curves in the set, and only the English version clearly deviates from this general trend. The most probable explanation for this difference, taking into account that we are considering only logged authors in this analysis, is that the English Wikipedia receives too contributions from too many casual users, who never come back again after performing just a few revisions.”
(The last sentence could as well be summarized: people are trying en, and not coming back.)
And it's not like there isn't a lot to write about. (See eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus/Wikipedia_interwiki_and_specialize... )
Some of these statistics are old. But I don't know of any newer more optimistic data.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Some of these statistics are old. But I don't know of any newer more optimistic data.
I remain convinced (gut feeling not based on statistics) that Wikipedia growth and development goes in phases, and that after an initial near-exponential growth stage (which we may be exiting) there is a long plateau-like stage where obscure gaps can be filled in. But crucially I think the gaps are larger (take up more room) than the existing framework, and so the time that it will take to fill in the gaps is much longer than people think. Inclusionists (to use the existing terminology that I don't really agree with) think that the eventual size of the encyclopedia will be very large, and others push back against having articles that are too obscure and only marginally supported by a few sources.
The strictly source-based approach that insists that most verifiable material can be placed somewhere in the encyclopedia means that you need an army of highly-experienced and top-quality writers and researchers with increasing access to a wide range of sources and who are comfortable using those sources properly to write a compendium of knowledge (i.e. Wikipedia). But I think that phase of the development will take longer than the initial creation (over the past period which is now approaching 10 years). It could take anything up to 50 years (to pick a random figure out of the air).
Of course, it might be better to focus efforts on improving the existing articles, but volunteers always work with what takes their fancy. In the end a mixture of approaches is what get used, but I do think that small studies of limited areas to see how they have developed (or even regressed) over a period of years would help give an idea of what count as "progress" here.
And I'm not overly worried about admin levels. Editor levels are what is most important, and admins will always emerge from the pool of those that edit. Admins that specialise too much and lose touch with editing are more of a concern, in my opinion.
Carcharoth
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:34 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that a _declining_ number of administrators means a _growth_ in bureaucracy? It would normally mean the opposite, either a loss of control, or that the ordinary members were taking the function upon themselves. What I see is a greater degree of control and uniformity, not driven by those in formal positions of authority.
No, I don't think there is any direct correlation between number of administrators (which is quantifiable) and growth in 'bureaucracy' (which is not). I'm referring to a general cultural shift that has occurred in the past couple years in various places (I could go into detail). "IAR" and the philosophy behind it is most definitely losing ground on Wikipedia, almost completely gone, and to the great detriment of people who frankly want to get shit done. That can be enforced by admins and regular users alike: it makes no particular difference.
If something I said implied otherwise, I was quite wrong to do so.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
At 12:56 AM 6/1/2010, Durova wrote:
Let's not mince words: Wikipedia administratorship can be a serious liability. The 'reward' for volunteering for this educational nonprofit
can
include getting one's real name Googlebombed, getting late night phone
calls
to one's home, and worse. The Wikimedia Foundation has never sent a cease and desist demand to the people who have made a years-long hobby of
driving
its administrators away.
Durova's history is a classic example. She was hounded by a screaming mob when she made a mistake, even though she recognized the error and undid it within an hour. She might have been desysopped had she not resigned, but that would have been a miscarriage of wikijustice. She should have been defended, but was not. And why? I've never really studied that.
While I've studied and have dealt with administrative abuse, the people who are most abused by the Wikipedia system are administrators, and that is probably a major source of abusive adminship.
I've argued for clear and strong rules for admin recusal, but what's often been missed is that this *protects* administrators from becoming over-involved in the mudslinging contests.
This is intensely problematic, and the current trend of strict (almost fanatical) adherence to the principle of administrator non-involvement is a serious barrier to the functioning of Wikipedia. We talk about how there is a lot of administrative work to be done, and I'll indicate to you that a reason there is so much work to be done is that administrators are regularly being prevented -- even punished! -- for doing it by these kinds of arbitrary rules. Smart administrators do not do the difficult work of wading into 'mudslinging contests' and trying to sort them out because the general community will *not* support them for their efforts, and as in my case, will actually consider them *responsible* for whatever further ugliness occurs after their involvement begins.
Administrator non-involvement is supposed to be advisable as a means to avoid possible conflicts of interest. Arbcom ruled that administrators should not use their sysop tools to further *their own position* in a content dispute. This was in my opinion a very wise choice of words, as it specifies exactly *what* is wrong with administrators using their sysop tools improperly.
But in fact, non-involvement is interpreted far more broadly by the community. Administrators are now applying the principle of non-involvement as a way of saving face -- and their necks, because even the appearance of impropriety can be fatal where the community in general tends to side against administrators and assumes that an actual conflict of interest is occurring whenever an administrator even appears to have one. The result is that the smart people don't get involved in the hard cases, which creates an atmosphere of peace, but causes article content to suffer dramatically -- and those admins who don't have that street sense, like me, run afoul of the rules and get disillusioned and quit. Witch-hunts that result out of conflict-of-interest complaints are only one of many issues where administrators have no support at all for what they are doing.
This is a cultural problem that we really could change by coming to defense of administrators who are the subject of witch-hunts. I'm equally to blame for this, because I fell to "first they came for the gypsies" syndrome -- I should have spoken up when it was Durova and others, but I didn't, and then they came for me. But I can tell you, and I hope you all take this feedback seriously because most disillusioned admins who lost interest in doing this hard work won't bother to tell you why they quietly left, or quietly stopped doing the hard ugly work that nobody wants to do, that there is no reason at all for an administrator to do the ugly work of dealing with the worst situations on Wikipedia if they cannot depend on community support.
I still strongly believe in this project and want to help. But only a fool would continue to work as an administrator in this climate, so I'm gone until I get some indication that the climate has changed.
- causa sui
Here are some numbers I pulled a few months ago regarding the number of admin requests over time:
successful unsuccessful total requests % successful 2004 177 63 240 74% 2005 387 213 600 65% 2006 353 543 896 39% 2007 408 512 920 44% 2008 201 392 593 34% 2009 121 234 355 34%
I can't comment on the reasons, but I thought I'd share the data in case people are interested.
Howie
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship and related pages. Note: 2004 is incomplete as unsuccessful candidacies were tracked starting April 2005
On 5/26/10 3:51 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Pretty much. That's more or less why I quit the project.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, The Cunctatorcunctator@gmail.com wrote:
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project. It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this undergo.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chanktc@ktchan.info wrote:
WereSpielChequers wrote:
What are the likely results of a dwindling number of admins, and a growing wikigeneration gap between admins and other editors?
Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard
expected
of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years?
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l