This page is an ongoing analysis of Conservapedia's active (and not-so-active) editors.
These numbers are a rough guide to how these labels are applied. Contributions during the most recent three months have been selected as one of the criteria for assigning an "activity level": Out of ≈ 25,900 editors who left their mark on Conservapedia, 180 did so over the last three months, showing various degrees of activity:
The busiest 50 of these editors can be found in the following table.
 User chart
This table breaks down an editor's contributions into specific months, calculates an average edit rate, and determines how "active" an editor is using real numbers.
Averages are calculated from date of first edit.
The recent average is the average of the last three months.
A blank entry, rather than a 0, denote the months before a user registered with Conservapedia.
The table includes those editors who made the most comments over the last three months.
 Notably absent
|Rank||User||#edits||days since last edit||longest previous gap||length of stay||days of activity||av. number of comments over length of stay||av. number of comments over days of activity|
|5||Philip J. Rayment||11069||1747||21||736||623||15||17.8|
 Retention Rate
In March 2011, we find this little exchange on Conservapedia's main talk page:
|Wikipdedia Fails to Retain Editors|
Wikipedia just admitted that its retention rate for editors has dropped from 40% to 12%. See: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update . What they won't admit is that they have allowed politicized cabals to systematically drive off any editors that don't agree with their ultra-liberal world view! Fongman 12:14, 12 March 2011 (EST)
This gave rise to a little news bit on the main page:
|A visitor here posts that "Wikipedia just admitted that its retention rate for editors has dropped from 40% to 12%.  What they won't admit is that they have allowed politicized cabals to systematically drive off any editors that don't agree with their ultra-liberal world view!"|
Isn't that amazing? The Wikimedia Foundation undertakes a research to better understand the internal dynamics of our communities, publishing hundreds of pages of data, diagrams and conclusions, while Andrew Schlafly is able to identify the inherent problems in a single sentence. So would it help Wikimedia to get rid of its politicized cabals? Let's have a look at the data for Conservapedia, which is absolutely free of an ultra-liberal world view!
For the scope of this survey, we use the definitions of Wikimedia's research project, especially:
- Active editors refers to registered users who have made five or more edits in the previous month. [...]
- Very active editors refers to people who have made 100+ edits in the previous months. Very active editors are a subset of active editors.
- New Wikipedians refers to people who have made their 10th edit in a given month. (So, a person who makes their 10th edit in January 2011 would be considered a New Wikpedian in January, but would cease being one in February)
The term new Conservapedian or new editor will be used analogously.
Let's first have a look at the data from August 2009 until July 2010 (taken from Wikimedia's Editor Trends Study):
All Wikipedias Conservapedia New Editors Active editors
(> 5 e/mo)
Very active editors
(> 100 e/mo)
New Editors Active editors
(> 5 e/mo)
Very active editors
(> 100 e/mo)
Jul-10 15,380 81,474 10,411 28 98 14 Jun-10 16,143 83,087 10,574 38 116 9 May-10 18,339 88,465 11,115 46 156 9 Apr-10 17,861 86,577 10,871 34 106 14 Mar-10 19,276 90,024 11,224 24 94 16 Feb-10 17,823 85,610 10,747 26 108 14 Jan-10 19,481 90,758 11,475 53 139 15 Dec-09 17,469 84,478 10,443 65 209 25 Nov-09 18,155 86,328 10,510 40 135 18 Oct-09 18,687 86,793 10,836 41 170 17 Sep-09 17,474 84,575 10,834 27 99 13 Aug-09 18,791 87,456 11,103 15 76 13
See how the Wikipedias are failing, while Conservapedia is blooming? But let's have a look at the retention rate. We were informed that Wikipedia's rate dropped to a meager 12%. At the same time, Conservapedia's rate raise to an astonishing 7.5% To make the difference even more obvious, the same scales are used in these diagrams, showing the retention rates and the number of active editors at the Wikipedias and Conservapedia:
But perhaps this isn't such a great idea, here another pic for Conservapdia, where the scale for active editors is inflated by the factor 100...
|(the high retention rate at RationalWiki indicates that it is one of the most conservative wikis...)|
For short: Wikipedia's failure to retain its editors is something Conservapedia can only dream of. But perhaps wikipedia should try Andrew Schlafly's approach and define an entity called quality editor: an editor who is likely to stay around. That would improve the retention rate of quality editors dramatically.
 Active Editors Statistics at Conservapedia
Conservapedia's own page statistics includes an entry active users. Those are defined as users who have performed an action in the last 7 days, while at the similar page at Wikipedia, this period is set for 30 days. For instance, on June 6th, 2009, Conservapedia counted 165 active users, while Wikipedia had 158,605. Calculating these numbers for both time periods yields this graph - though, for the graph only those users are counted which made at least one edit, and not only performed blocks, etc.
On a first glance, Conservapedia seems to attract twice at many active editors than RationalWiki. But if you take only those editors into account who aren't blocked, the situation changes dramatically: Then RationalWiki (having virtually no blocked members) takes the lead.
As of June 5, 2010, RationalWiki has more active users than Conservapedia even when blocked users are counted on both wikis.