Inactive Wikipedia administrator survey hoax Options

[TungstenCarbide]

<edit> looks like a hoax, see tarantino's post below

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewfor...EU3RuX2RoREE6MA

"...a statistical analysis revealed a 96% chance that administrator inactivity is causing the decline in active English Wikipedia editors as a whole: "

Looks like the survey is being run by Steven Walling and "a Community Health Task Force volunteer who wishes to remain anonymous".

----

related thread; The "holy shit" slide on editor retention, Sue Gardner on Wikipedia's death spiral

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[iii]

I don't know what's wrong with Mr. Salsman, but he's clearly obsessed with Wikipedia in a pretty destructive way. The contributions of his various accounts run the gambit from deranged and paranoid to obsessive to the point of lunacy. It looks to me like the fellow hasn't met an anti-establishment conspiracy theory he hasn't liked.

The style of his accounts' interactions are a real throwback to the rough-and-tumble times of 2005 to 2006 when it looked for a while like Wikipedia might adopt something like Ed Poor/Fred Bauder vision of accommodating all comers and letting them have free reign of top-level articles. This guy is really the epitome of Randy in Boise and remains a hanger-on probably in hopes of getting himself ingratiated back into the fold so that he can make sure the world knows about those sword-wielding skeletons.

[EricBarbour]

I don't know what's wrong with Mr. Salsman, but he's clearly obsessed with Wikipedia in a pretty destructive way. The contributions of his various accounts run the gambit from deranged and paranoid to obsessive to the point of lunacy. It looks to me like the fellow hasn't met an anti-establishment conspiracy theory he hasn't liked.

a) I don't get that impression from looking at Salsman's contribs, so you'd better offer some evidence.

b) I am in contact with him, and I don't get the impression he's "obsessed" with Wikipedia. He tried a high-risk scheme, got blocked for it, but also elided some useful information.
(as usual, they are censoring the record.)

c) Tiptoety is still a slimy little bastard. In my personal opinion, mind you.

d) are we supposed to take an anonymous poster on WR seriously? How do we know YOU'RE not Philippe Beaudette, engaging in psy-ops warfare?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[TungstenCarbide]

I don't know what's wrong with Mr. Salsman, but he's clearly obsessed with Wikipedia in a pretty destructive way. The contributions of his various accounts run the gambit from deranged and paranoid to obsessive to the point of lunacy. It looks to me like the fellow hasn't met an anti-establishment conspiracy theory he hasn't liked.

a) I don't get that impression from looking at Salsman's contribs, so you'd better offer some evidence.

b) I am in contact with him, and I don't get the impression he's "obsessed" with Wikipedia. He tried a high-risk scheme, got blocked for it, but also elided some useful information.
(as usual, they are censoring the record.)

c) Tiptoety is still a slimy little bastard. In my personal opinion, mind you.

d) are we supposed to take an anonymous poster on WR seriously? How do we know YOU'RE not Philippe Beaudette, engaging in psy-ops warfare?

I keep trying to read up on this whole debacle but after a few paragraphs my eyes glaze over...

Salsman's email led the recipient to assume it was a WMF sanctioned survey. He tried to do right by keeping the WMF in the loop, and nudging them into participation, but the lazy slugs there don't like ideas unless they are their own.

Is that about right?

And then, while trying to read further, I stumbled across references to 'cold fusion' and gave up. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: