Useful article in The Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology ... oint-them/
Some of these points seem to parallel those Eric has made over the past few days.In July this year, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales rejected the notion that the online encyclopaedia is struggling to appoint new administrators.
Wales was responding to an article in The Atlantic, which showed that since the 2007 peak of admin candidacies, the number of successful admin appointments on the English Wikipedia has diminished year after year. In 2007, a minimum of 18 editors were appointed administrators every month – a stark contrast to the mere 20 appointed in 2012 so far.
[...]
However, the fact that fewer of them are being appointed is not necessarily a problem. The real issue is that they are gradually disappearing.
As the startling graph above shows, the active admin corps has shrunk by around a third over the last five years, and it’s only those who have made at least 30 edits within the last 60 days that are considered “active” – more than half of the 1,465 accounts with admin privileges have not.
However, even this definition of an active administrator is fundamentally flawed: editing is just editing, and is not synonymous with the use of administrative tools. There are admins who, irrespective of how many recent editorial contributions they have made, may not have logged an admin action such as deleting a spam page or protecting a page from a flurry of vandalism for weeks, months, or even years.
[...] the current trend puts Wikipedia at the beginning of a path down which most of us would not want it to go.