Proposal talk:Retirement of long-time editors

A half-pregnant idea

Generally, the editors are not the problem; it is the power structure formed when an administrator is backed by a few hanger-on editors. This occurs on articles, but less so on projects. Together they are the ones that partly hamper inclusion of newer members and their subsequent participation. Based on the current rules, once this structure has been set, it is hard to demolish. Forced retirement after such a long tenure is helpful, but probably not effective in the long-term. The radical reform of the administrator selection process is the only way to adhere to the motivation of this proposal But is ain't gonna happen!GMJ 15:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don´t have do be administrator to set an edit back. Ed H. Chi wrote in his blog: "The total percentage of monthly reverted edits (...) has steadily increased over the years for all the classes of editors (e.g. 2.9, 4.2, 4.9, and 5.8 percent of all edits for 2005 through 2008 as shown by the dash line)." Why does the number of reverted edits doubles during the last four years ?

On the other hand, the number of reverted edits increased steadily, but the growth of Wikipedia activity stopped all at once in 2007. Maybe there is no connection between the number of reverted edits and the number of contributors, and if we decrease the number of reverted edits we will not get more contributors. --Goldzahn 00:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, funnily enough, even though I've been here over three years. The only problem is that long-time editors have a range of interests. They would never start as rookies somewhere else, because the real rookies are still learning. If you ban them completely, the rookies will take over, and it would become Fancruft Pedia.--Andreasegde 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve been here since Oct. 2004, therefore I would be near retirement. On the other hand, I changed my Username once. ;-)) --Goldzahn 22:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A half-pregnant idea {Continue)

So don't you plan to propose a voluntary pension scheme ? I would soon be opting out of wikipedia happily for ever;-)) The problem is real.I always lost my new page creations against various deletion mechanism on en wikipedia.Present system does not give enough breathing space before a new article is created. While purist claim that there are lot of other places to do original reasearch on internet so wikis are a strict no no for original reasearch.The flaw in this argument is other places on the net do not allow me ease of page linking with existing wiki pages. Writing nonpov nuetral is not a skill aquired by birth.That needs practice and support. As a support team member on Mr wiki I always observe people begin with original reasearch and they insert their personal openions and many of them are not aware of encyclopedia concept too to begin with.My fellow seniors delet their pages insataneously . from seniors this happens across most of wikis. Solution may not be the retirement but may be having sandbox as namespace.Presently users are encouraged to write in their own user sub page but this tends to kill collaborative effort. But stll some one please do put up a proposal for voluntary pension plan;-)) Mahitgar 07:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get rid of me!

I'm past retirement age according to this proposal. Please don't ban me :o) Seriously, though, long term editors do much useful work on Wikipedia. I think they're people we want and need. Wouldn't it be a big slap in the face if you suddenly told such people that they couldn't contribute any more? --Bodnotbod 13:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Run, Logan, Run!

It didn't work out too well in the film... --Tango 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a little note

A few problem that I think of :

Even if you do that, old user can just create another account and get with it
We will lose very valuable person (in France, there's an expression about it : "throwing the baby along with the bath's water")
Also, one can't deport user on other projects : they're not paid and contribute merely because they want to. You can't "force" them to go there.

Darkoneko 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope!

Disagree. That system could be regarded as kind of a collective punishment. Measures to improve content should never direct toward persons, only to the process of creating the content. All Wikipedia policies and recommendations strive towards focusing away from person, to ignore personal attacks as flamebaits, to concentrate on the content and the texts produced, and this policy would do exactly the opposite. Such a rule would disrupt the Wikipedia culture. Rursus 14:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rursus. If so, experienced editors will feel disappointed, as if they are abandoned. Freshman will consider it, thus there'll be fewer people participating the project. And Wikipedia will finally fail.--Cosmia 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact?

Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal was just fun. There is no impact. --Goldzahn 08:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]