On 2/27/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would argue that hyper-active admins are more likely
to have a short admin
career (whether that be because of desysopping or just leaving), and further
that the likelihood is greater than proportional to their edits.
Not exactly whuile the burn out rate is high (2-3 of the top ten on
that list I posted are gone) most are not that new.
My ideal situation would be that admins would be very
active initially so
they can learn the ropes,
You can't inforce this
and that they would then settle down to an
activity level more characteristic of the long tail, where they are not so
much admins but editors with admin powers who regularly (but not
excessively) help out the current batch of very active new admins and once
in a while clear out backlogs.
There are not enough new admins. Throw in the rate of rule shift and
you have a problem with the older admins.
The long tail isn't doing enough with the result that the head has to.
--
geni