[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

[William Pietri]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Is that our aim?
>>
>> Long ago, I used to work for market makers. These days, I do a lot of
>> work for Internet companies. In both lines of work, risk management is
>> essential. In both, the aim is to take as many well-managed,
>> likely-profitable risks as possible. That's how things get better, and
>> that's where a lot of your best information comes from.
>>
>> The risk management strategy you describe strikes me as a good one for
>> something much more settled, like a water utility.
>>
>> Do you really think Wikipedia should be that risk-averse? I had thought
>> it a much more dynamic enterprise, at least for the next few decades.
>>     
>
> Risk management is always about balancing risk and reward. How
> risk-averse you are determines where you put that balance (in other
> words, how much reward you require to make the risk worthwhile), but
> you have to put the balance somewhere. It's never wise to take a risk
> that offers no reward. Being not at all averse to risk is never a good
> idea.
>   

That's all true, and I agree completely.

Remind me who was advocating taking risks that offer no reward?

Also, my question wasn't about whether one should balance risks and 
rewards, but what the right level of risk tolerance is for Wikipedia. 
I'm saying that I expect Wikipedia would be pretty hungry for 
well-managed risk. Unless people feel that the era of innovation at 
Wikipedia is more or less over, in which case the minimum-risk strategy 
you suggest seems more appropriate.

Thanks,

William