Conservapedia talk:Editors' Report Card 2007

Ghenghis, this is class. Nice work. Got any TK data? DogP  16:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * I'm working on an Excel sheet for sortage and rankage, if anyone is interested. Lurker 16:51, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * I'm interested. I'd try it myself, but I am t3h n00b at Excel. a  ssume  $$a=a$$ 16:55, 2 January 2008 (EST)


 * I have all this in an XL spreadsheet if anyone wants it. Data is available for every editor. Are there any special requests? [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis Marauding 17:10, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Grrr shoulda asked first. What data do you have? Just what's in the table, or other stuff? Lurker 17:28, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Ooooh! Graphs! Graphs! DogP  18:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)

The data I have available is all derived from Interiot's edit tool. I have pasted the values for all editors shown in the article page into an Excel workbook. I deliberately avoided a daily edit analysis as some editors were apparently unable to contribute at certain times. Genghis Marauding 19:10, 2 January 2008 (EST)


 * It is probably easy to add, but I'd be interested how the total contributions evolve over time, i.e. the sum of a sysops, and maybe of all editors. To complement the Alexa charts. 124.170.99.231 06:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * I could add totals (any one else is free to do it if they're interested) but the total number of edits is completely different from Alexa page ranking which relies on page views from outside and also ignores multiple views. Also for any meaningful analysis you need to separate mainspace edits from talk and admin - check Jallen, TK and Order's percentages for example. Unfortunately Interiot's tool only gives a break down for the total number of edits while the monthly figures are a combined total.  [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 06:56, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Made some more tables
I added a row which calculated how long each editor edited in 2007 (365 days for those who were members pre-2007). Surprisingly it didn't really make that much difference in the top 10, so I expanded it to 15. For the heck of it I added a bottom 15 as well. Some highlights: I want to add a percentage of productive/non-productive work, but I first want to see what data Genghis has, so I don't have to do the same work. Lurker 18:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Bold are non-sysops, regular text are sysops
 * An (e) signifies those editors who have night editing. (8/12 "big editors" have edit rights).
 * There are very few non-sysops in the top ten, but they fill the middle of the pack.
 * Likewise, there are few non-sysops in the bottom ten
 * I added Jazzman831 and TK, both of whom were blocked but both made top 15
 * Oh man I forgot about Bohdan!! How could I forget about him? Cruuuuuuds I don't want to make those tables again. Lurker 18:49, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * That was pretty heartless of you. user talk:Bohdan 19:31, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Not heartless, just forgetful. Sometimes Bohdan you just blend into the background or disappear down the nearest black hole.  Luckily I remembered your little Ukrainian contributions (thanks to my Ukranian secretary, Sevilya).  [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 19:37, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Disappearing into Black holes? Sounds like a fancy way of accusing me of being Tmtoulouse's (the ultimate blackhole) sock. That's user:Human and user:AmosG.  user talk:Bohdan 19:44, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * If it makes you feel better, Bohdan, you were #14 in edits per day.
 * What about scoring? I was thinking (total edits [normalized])*(edits/day)*[(main%)+(admin%)], but it doesn't change much. Can you tell I enjoy playing with Excel? :) Lurker 20:22, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * There isn't much point in trying to rank the editors on the rate of editing as it ignores the quality. Just look at some of Andy & Ed's new articles for example, and Conservative routinely saves his edits every two minutes to up his own page counts. The main point of the tables is to point out that Andy's own criteria for merit are not being followed as many sysops would be retired for inactivity while active editors with a large mainspace edits are overlooked.  Especially poor little HelpJazz who doesn't even get night edit rights. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 02:58, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * True, even with some sort of score the ranks don't change much. I think what's most interesting is playing around with the sorting and seeing how the things shook out. Lurker 15:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I'm a keen grapher, so if you want to make your superb XL doc available for dl, I'd be happy to get to work. DogP  13:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * I'll see if I can upload mine. Can you upload Excel documents? We are about to find out... Lurker 15:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * That's a negatory. I'd post it to my personal website but, eh.... don't really want you creeps knowing who I am ;) Lurker 15:16, 3 January 2008 (EST)


 * NO sweat - I understand!  But you should really try to graph this data - trends can hide in tables, you know...  But great work nevertheless.   DogP  12:36, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * I'll see what I can do. Did you have anything specific in mind? Lurker 14:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)


 * I've made a bunch of graphs and they are rather surprising. Granted, we are limited by only having quantity and not quality (though we can very roughly gauge quality based on the namespace percentage) but so far the sysops as a group have beat out the editors as a group in every category I've tried. I'll post some schweet ass graphs tomorrow. Excel 2007 may be THE DUMBEST, MOST MAC-IFIED (read: nothing is where it should be based on the logic of someone who's used Excel for easily a decade) PROGRAM EVER, but it does make some cool graphs. If you can figure out how to make them. I had to consult the help twice, and both times I had to actually read all the steps to figure out what I was doing. It made Lurkatroid sad :( Lurker 01:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * You ignore the fact that sysops can edit with impunity, they are free to edit and add whatever they like, whenever they like. Normal editors have to watch their step or they don't last long. In fact the whole culture at CP tends to drive away editors after a while, especially those who try to be helpful but get disillusioned when they see their efforts go unrewarded, or even worse, the efforts of poorer editors, like Bethany, DeborahB and CollegeRepublican just because they are one of Andy's pets. Have you got night edit rights yet Lurk?  [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 02:25, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * I didn't ignore it, there's just no way to account for it. I tried to clearly state that the graphs and data are limited only to quantity, not quality. Also night edits don't effect most of the selected users, because they either didn't need them (if they were blocked early enough) or have them (with some exceptions). As to my night edit rights: only the Shadow knows. Lurker 19:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Amazing
This is really cool. Were you able to retrieve the data automagically, or did you have to wade through contrib lists manually?

Request for a new section... RW 1.0 editors... might be fun to see in a separate section. human  18:27, 3 January 2008 (EST)


 * There is a link in CP's welcome notice to each editor's stats - Interiot's tool. All I did was copy and paste individuals' data into a spreadsheet. So although it wasn't an instant thing it didn't take that long. I guess one could set up an Excel sheet to automatically download the data when required using a web query. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 18:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ah, ok, yes. I remember that tool.  I wonder what it would take to run it here? human  18:53, 3 January 2008 (EST)


 * Well, the sourcecode is available freely. Quick check seems to hint that you'd only have to add a section for RW and its namsespaces somewhere. Plus maybe some other minor stuff (like setting "my $site" to RW). But I didn't check this in-depth, so I might be wrong. --Sid 16:30, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Sysop CPanel
Obviously, I'm seeing what I want to see, but shouldn't CPanel's username be CPPanel. It's meant to be seen a C-Panel, sorta. The "divide" isn't meant to be between the "C" and "P" but after the "P". However, that becomes CP-anel. Or, more to the point, CP-anal. --Edgerunner  76 14:48, 4 January 2008 (EST)
 * Don't blame me, that's the way Darth Schlafly set it up. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis Marauding 15:07, 4 January 2008 (EST)
 * That's sort of what I meant (i.e. Freudian slip). <font color="#00A86B" face="Comic Sans MS">--Edgerunner  <font color="#DE3163" face="Comic Sans MS">76 15:09, 4 January 2008 (EST)


 * There isn't any such "user" CP-Panel. It is an account that used to be used (may still be) by Philip, the CP Webmaster, to provide answers coming from the Student Panel. --TK/MyTalk|undefined 23:13, 4 January 2008 (EST)

It just stands for Conservapedia Panel, not using "CP" as an abbreviation. Yeah, it looks funny when you're used to reading "CP" as conservapedia. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  00:34, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Wording of Report Card
OK, lets try to get a consensus on the wording. Here's the history:

As originally written by Ghengis Khant:

Conservapedia's elite sysops and by a selected group of dumb peons who persist in believing Aschlafly's mantra

as changed by Ed Poor:

Conservapedia's elite sysops and by a selected group of others who persist in believing Aschlafly's mantra

reverted by SusanG back to Ghenghis version:

Conservapedia's elite sysops and by a selected group of dumb peons who persist in believing Aschlafly's mantra

reverted by ellisant back to Ed Poor version:

Conservapedia's elite sysops and by a selected group of others who persist in believing Aschlafly's mantra

reverted by Edgerunner76 back to Ghengis original version:

Conservapedia's elite sysops and by a selected group of dumb peons who persist in believing Aschlafly's mantra

changed by TK:

Conservapedia's elite sysops and a select group of insipidly blind followers who

reworded by 193.200.150.26

Conservapedia's elite sysops and a selected group of well intentioned but misguided editors who persist in believing Aschlafly's mantra

reverted to TK's version by PFoster:

Conservapedia's elite sysops and a selected group of insipidly blind followers who persist in believing Aschlafly's mantra

fact tag added by Lurker

I think we should revert back to original Ghengis version:

Conservapedia's elite sysops and by a selected group of dumb peons who persist in believing Aschlafly's mantra

until we have a consensus.

Do we need to take a vote on the wording? 68.124.184.157 21:55, 4 January 2008 (EST)


 * You could just be nice to your fellow human beings. That's not so radical an idea, is it? Lurker 21:58, 4 January 2008 (EST)


 * heh. changed again by Human in the time it took to write that, lol. I'm ok with Human's version: Conservapedia's elite sysops and a selected group of lowly peons 68.124.184.157


 * I got edit-conflicted (twice -- get it right the first time IP!! :p) as well. What I was going to say is I agree with "lowly peon". It's a good contrast to "elite sysop". However, I did notice "who persist in believing Aschlafly's mantra" and this, too, doesn't seem to apply to Order (among others). Lurker 22:04, 4 January 2008 (EST)


 * Sorry about the edit conflicts :p Im on a crappy borrowed computer. I agree with you on the current wording "lowly peons" 68.124.184.157 22:08, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Well, you two agreeing means? I think the wording, as I changed it, removes "peon" which, as noted, doesn't apply to people like Order, etc. However, if they continue at CP, without quitting, they do become, as I did, a blind follower. Or so I was told many times by users here..... --TK/MyTalk|undefined 23:16, 4 January 2008 (EST)
 * Our agreement meanst nothing, TK, for we are not part of the cabal! (Actually, I have no idea who that IP is, so maybe we are 50% comprised of the cabal?) Anyways, I like the elite/lowly comparison because it really displays how things "really go on around there", at least in the eyes of El Schlafly. And I don't really grok insipid, so that's why I vote against it :) Lurker 01:02, 5 January 2008 (EST)


 * Fair enough! Although I would point out to you that Andy cops the same attitude of lowly peons to Admins as well, not just the editors GK picked out..;-) I gave it a bit more edge back, but am comfortable with it as it was before my edit. --TK/MyTalk|undefined 02:01, 5 January 2008 (EST)


 * Oooooooooooooh I like it this way. Lurker 03:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)


 * I will not make any more edits to the wording, I stand by my original text although maybe elite should have been in quotes to emphasise the snarkiness. The mob can come to a mutually acceptable form of words. However, I think that the note that editors "haven't been around long enough" should be removed as the selected ones obviously. As for the astuteness of those editors who carry on without being rewarded, well the image of a donkey and a carrot on a stick springs to mind, so maybe "donkey-brained" is a better description However, I still call it just plain dumb. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]<font color=Blue>Genghis  Marauding 03:34, 5 January 2008 (EST)


 * That's making a lot of assumptions though. (You know what happens when you make an assumption? You ass. Or donkey, if you like.) I'd go into them all, but I'm getting tired. I think it's fair to say, though, that there can be long-time editors at CP who aren't dumb but edit there anyway, for a number of individual reasons. Lurker 03:43, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * And guess what? We think they are dumb for doing so. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  07:47, 5 January 2008 (EST)

My only point was that not everybody would have been around long enough to realize that Andy talks the talk about merit, but doesn't do the walk. Some have steeper learning curves, which GH and others cannot recognize due to their politics, which naturally makes them suspicious of Andy's motives, whereas some of us wanted to believe, and that takes longer to come undone...even in the face of evidence and reality. Think of it in terms of a liberal wanting to believe John Edwards has empathy for the poor....:P --TK/MyTalk|undefined 04:05, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * Question is, are the "selected" editors documented among those, or should they have got a clue-by-four by now? PS, I think JE gets the whole "poor" thing jes' fine. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  07:47, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * How about "other lowly well intentioned but misguided insipidly blind following dumb editing peons" ? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 08:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * Hehe, that ought to make everyone happy - or pissed off. You forgot "wonderful", though. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  18:10, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Last mainspace edits by sysops
Since it's somewhat related, I'll just post it here.

I got the wild idea to check when our High Quality Super Editors (a.k.a. sysops) made their last mainspace (see final note) edits:

I broke the list up into groups that made halfway sense to me. Also, edits on the same day are just sorted alphabetically. I compiled the list by hand, so typos, reading mistakes, or other mistakes are possible (though not TOO likely, I think).

Final note: In this case, I treat "mainspace" as the real mainspace (not Template, Conservapedia, MediaWiki, Talk, User, etc.), minus mainspace pollution like the fake "Essay" and "Debate" namespaces, or articles that shouldn't be in the mainspace, like "Contest3". In other words: Something that actually modified an encyclopedia article. --Sid 17:23, 5 January 2008 (EST)

New section
If no one minds, I'm going to start a new section at the bottom for peeps like me that edited prior to the Great Purge. I'll try not to break anything! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  22:47, 6 January 2008 (EST)
 * I would like to see that. Lurker 22:48, 6 January 2008 (EST)
 * OK, I did me. This is the link to get data on users:

http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=Human


 * Obviously this one is for my username. Swap in whoever you are researching.  Maybe I'll do a few others if I get motivated. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  23:01, 6 January 2008 (EST)


 * Interesting results. I'm not going to update the table above, but PalMD is #7 for the year when ranked by edits/day. Sid is #9 and Human is #10. They have high proportion of "unimportant" (in the eyes of Herr Schlafly, anyway), so if you rank by useful edits per day their positions slip to #13, #15, and #14, respectively. Proof you were all just trolls!!!!1!!!1!TK1!!!!!ONE!!! Lurker 23:58, 6 January 2008 (EST)
 * Foiled again by my impatience. I'll add the new recruits tomorrow, when I'm sure the new additions are done. Lurker 23:59, 6 January 2008 (EST)
 * There are probably 10-20 more I have to add, so hang in there. The hard part is making sure I remember everyone somehow. Glad you are enjoying the data! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  00:02, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * I'm addicted to Excel. And data analysis.... But mostly just I'm addicted to Excel. Lurker 00:09, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * There's defnitely some fascinating data in there. Man, if one were a good programmer, it should be possible to extract all sorts of data like this automagically into one big spreadsheet. Oh well.  There's one or two more I haven't got yet (maybe five), but I'm almost done. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  01:09, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks
You helped me find some great fossil records-- http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Palmd001/Falsifiability_Challenge&oldid=142760

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Palmd001/Essay:Motivations_for_the_Teaching_of_Intelligent_Design&oldid=96661
 * Hehe, I went on a little trip down memory lane the other day myself. Much of my work remains untouched... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  00:00, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Why?
Why would you say that? That just makes the wandal in me want to edit conflict the page to no end. 00:37, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Because the editing is hard work - when you bamboozled tmt's footnote I had just added username links to the whole section and added someone and done some organizing. Losing ten-fifteen minutes work to a snarky insertion sucks.  So I added that note as a simple warning.  Anyway, I put your joke back in after saving my version. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  01:08, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * I know, I got that, I was just making a veiled (joke) threat. Nice work on the article, by the way. 01:09, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Hehe, veil away. And, thanks.  I only did the last section, of course, and once I was told how to get the data it was mostly grunt work copying a bunch of numbers after digging out the old user names from a few places.  Luckily we RatWidiots tend to be obsessive archivers!  There's a packrat joke just waiting to be dug out of that line... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  01:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

RW1.0 editors
I was never a member of RW1.0 although I did get zapped in the night of the blunt knives along with everyone else. However, I had so many different accounts it would be too much trouble to consolidate them all but my LT account is still doing well so I can take comfort from that. <font color=Blue>Genghis Darned socks 14:31, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Psrdst Sysop
Wasn't there somebody (can't remember the name) who was made a sysop a while back that did things like maintain a pink list of librul commie users on his user page, and then turned out to be a deep-cover parodist? It'd be interesting to see his stats.--Bayesupdate 14:43, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * You talkin' bout Richard? Lurker 14:51, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ah yes, that's him.--Bayesupdate 14:58, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Wow Lurker. I didn't know you went so far back.  I see you in a new light.--Bobbing up 15:05, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * It's safe to say that I lurk very well. Lurker 15:07, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Oh yeah, wasn't it Richard who uploaded the rigged CP logo to finally "out" himself? Did "he" ever turn up here, does anyone know? Or care to tell? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  15:28, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * I'm sure he was on RW1 at least as "Richard".--Bobbing up 15:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Richard outed himself at his blog (which was then found by sysops). The rigged logo was somebody else, though I dunno who right now... --Sid 15:40, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Bill O'Rielly Fan 216.84.35.66 15:43, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yep, BillOReillyFan, that was him. See this CP:Logo page where everybody praises a logo that is now mysteriously missing... (the discussion was also removed later on...) --Sid 15:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * If I recall correctly, he decided to not participate much in RW, as he had his fun as Richard already. He did write at bit on AKjeldsen's blog.--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 16:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Linkages
Are we going to be doing cp:user: links? If so, how? To user names or contribs list? CЯacke ® 16:34, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * I dunno how much it matters - maybe best to link to the source data file for each one? I only linked the RW people to deal with the slightly different user names, and I linked them to their user pages here. I suppose the question is, what "value" does adding the links add to the article? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  16:42, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * I think Interiot's stats pages are still up..as can be seen here it takes a while. CЯacke ® 22:37, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, those links are all still good - indefinitely, I would imagine. That's where I got the cabalista data, and I think it's where the guy who built this got his.  Maybe we should just provide generic info about that above all the tables?  <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  22:43, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * This would be the generic link. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  22:44, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah that's a better link...do UserC's for a laugh CЯacke ®
 * Interiot's stat analysis is done purely from the Special:User contributions list (see tiny footnote at bottom of each stats page) so unless those editors' names are completely expunged from the database, the information just hangs around waiting to be retrieved. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]<font color=Blue>Genghis  Marauding 02:32, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Graphses
(For starters I know little about wiki images. If someone wants to reformat them please be my guest.)

First we see exibit A. As you can see, it's clear that sysops as a group make more total edits and more good edits.* It's clear that editors have a higher contribution of "good" edits, but still not the majority. So I looked at this and thought to myself: this is great as far as averages, but it shows us nothing about the individual user. (Note: there were 33 sysops and 33 editors, so I didn't need to divide by the number of users). My first attempt was to graph a distribution of edits for each, as shown in exibit B, below.

* This does not take into effect the quality of edits, only the namespaces in which the edits take place. It also does not account for edit rights, but most of the post-purgers have rights, and the pre-purgers didn't need them.

Even though technically this should be a bar graph with group size 2000 I made it a line graph because it was easier to read. You still can't get much from it, though. There are slightly more editors in the low range and slightly more sysops in the upper range. (I didn't bother with "good" edits because it showed more or less the same thing -- not much). I still needed a better way to show the difference between sysops and editors. They are different, right? And editors are better, right? Here comes exibit C.

A box plot was the answer. As you can clearly see, the sysops are significantly skewed (Andy is even an outlier!). Look at how far away the mean (red rectangle) is from the median (white line)! Now we have concrete evidence that there's something funky going on. The sysops as a group are better than the editors as a group, but it's only thanks to a handful of sysops. (Funny little side note: notice that you can see the minimum value for the sysops, but not for the editors. Why is this? The editors don't have anyone who do an average of 0.0 good edits per day, of course!)

This one I did because when I was finding everyone's join date (to calculate length of membership) I noticed that a TON of people joined in March. It turns out I was right; it also had the highest percentage of blocked users (52%). (Technically it was second highest, July is first because only user who joined that month was blocked). Note that this is just the "big users" that were picked, not all users. It's very likely that the percentage is higher than 52%, given the influx of users. Another interesting side note: of the 33 users that joined in March, 17 were eventually blocked and 15 were made sysop. Tash, Additioner, Aziraphale, Order, Additioner were neither blocked nor sysopped. (The numbers don't add up to 33 because TK, Hoji and Elamdri were sysops who were also blocked).

So that's it. I actually had these done a couple days ago, but I had more pots than burners and this one needed the least amount of cooking. If anyone wants to know how they ranked let me know. Those tables are a pain in the butt and I don't want to try it again. Enjoy... Lurker 19:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)


 * At one point I calculated a "blocking half-life," the amount of time from a user registered to when the editios was blocked. Maybe I'll do it for Dec. again--fun graphs though... Sterileminichatroomthingy 08:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)

90/10 Rule
Looking at this, I noticed that all but about 5 or so of CP's editors were in violation of the '90/10 rule' - some of them quite severely (almost half of RSchlafly's edits were on talk pages, for example). I find this alarming display of hypocrisy to be curiously amusing. --64.111.239.9 21:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 * "They" are allowed 90% talk/10% content. "You" are only allowed 10% talk/90% substantive constructive improvements of content to the world's fastest glowing encyclopedophilia. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  22:25, 1 April 2008 (EDT)