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: Wed 15th February 2012, 5:36pm

[TungstenCarbide]

Timeline of an inactive admin;
1- edits Wikipedia and finds it fun, creates a user account
2- creates content and feels good about a new hobby
3- becomes an administrator, but is troubled by a childish culture. thinks maybe he can improve it.
4- slowly realizes that the obvious path toward creating a quality encyclopedia will never happen (no quality system, no release system, no culture of competent editing, no meritocracy of project leadership, glorification and protection of all things obscene ...)
5- looks around and sees despicable worms of all types in positions of leadership, none of whom create content, few even capable of it.
6- leaves in disgust once he's better acquainted with the company there.

[No one of consequence]

5- looks around and sees despicable worms of all types in positions of leadership, none of whom create content, few even capable of it.

5- looks around and sees that those in leadership who are generally thoughtful and well-intentioned have no hope of bringing about meaningful change


Otherwise, +1

[everyking]

5- looks around and sees despicable worms of all types in positions of leadership, none of whom create content, few even capable of it.

5- looks around and sees that those in leadership who are generally thoughtful and well-intentioned have no hope of bringing about meaningful change


Otherwise, +1

I suppose that does sound better than "despicable worms".

[No one of consequence]

I suppose that does sound better than "despicable worms".

I didn't mean to indicate that there aren't also despicable worms in leadership. Only that the good people are powerless against them.

If Wikipedia were important, it might be worth it to stay and fight the worms, even in a losing effort. (And if donuts were health food, I'd be a marathoner.)

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Wed 15th February 2012, 4:50pm