Yes, "stagnation" is far more accurate. Thing is, it used to be a source of pride to tell your real world associates that you're a wikipedia admin. You'd even put it on your resume. Now, it's a bit of an embarassing secret and you definitely would not raise it in a job interview.
On 3/25/10, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 March 2010 20:51, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active >> project. >> It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this >> undergo. > > I think "death" is overstating it. Many things show rapid growth > followed by a small decline before stabilising. That's what I think is > happening with enwiki (the rate of decline in many metrics has > massively reduced compared to just after their peaks). You are, > however, right to state that what we're seeing with admin numbers is > replicated by most other statistics. It would probably be best to look > at the ratio of active admins to active Wikipedians. Since both groups > have shrunk since around 2006/2007, the ratio may have stayed roughly > steady. > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
