On 4/16/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In other words
- do less-active admins make more mistakes with the tools than more
active ones, either per-admin or per-thousand-admin-actions or
whatever?
Define mistake.
I think you also fail to answer whether less active
admins do
sufficient good for the project by having the admin bit - I say that
they do.
I'd also submit that the very active admins, in my opinion - they
'hyper-active' in your definition - are the ones headed for burnout,
Yup. But unless the paper admins become fairly active there isn't much
to be done about that.
the ones likely to be giving insufficient time and
consideration to
each admin action, the ones most likely to be applying policy
mechanistically rather than with judgment, and quite often the ones
making a greater rate of errors.
Not really since the system is set up so that for the most part the
relevant policy
can be applied mechanistically.
The latter, I should qualify, not generally being
'misunderstanding
the process' errors, but poor judgment,
Given the number of actions involved and the level of complaints that
seems unlikely.
insufficient consideration,
I can tell if something has a source in about 2 seconds. I see no need
for further consideration unless I notice something odd (past
revisions or image content).
over-aggressive use of admin tools,
Strangely no. You don't rack up those kind of numbers in the areas
where actions are likely to be viewed as aggressive.
biting the newbies,
Again no. Most of the work is away from newbies.
and basically
acting like a killer adminbot on crack.
Acting? You think that there are not people running adminbots?
I think, Geni, that you over-consider the damaging
effects of not
understanding process, and under-consider the damaging effects of
those other problems.
Damage/Risk vs gain. What do we gain from paper admins?
--
geni