Conservapedia talk:90/10 Rule

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Gee, I always read the 90/10 rule the other way around. --Horace 18:16, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I think there's something backwards here. The rule, the way I read it, was that if you spend 90% of your time on talk pages, you were in trouble. Of course, then you got those pesky unwritten rules again, where disliked editors got banned under the 90/10 rule even when it was proved they spent way more time editing, because their edits weren't "quality" or were mostly on a small number of articles and therefore didn't count. Obvious lies and abuse of power, of course, but we already knew that. --Kels 18:19, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
I believe it's original "formulation" was bascially that, yes. You were "expected" to have at least 10% of your edits be to articles. (having over 50% means you're not discussing your edits, bad form). But if you read the current version (and what we need here are some permalinks), it says you should make 90% of your edits to articles and confine yourself to 10% or less "talk". Luckily on this site we have 33/33/33/1 rule: "Spend just under one third of your time saying 'Hi' to old friends, an equal amount of time building userboxen, another almost-one-third watching utube and reading flat earth blogs, and, if you have time for a sandwich first, blow 1% of your time here editing an article or two. Or not."
I'll see what I can do about those links. humanbe in 19:02, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

"Commandment 7: Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account." [1]

is current. Now, I'm sure TK managed to mis-state it somewhere... back in a flash! humanbe in 19:04, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

There should be some note to the effect that TK himself, were he not a sysop, would have been far more guilty of breaking the 90/10 rule than anyone he's banned under it. I'm not sure, but I'd guess he's the least productive of sysops. Not surprising, given that he just hangs around blogs all day... --Kels 19:08, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
(heh, TK's current user page [2] breaks the sidebar format and forces the menus to the bottom left. heh.) humanbe in 19:12, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Is it just me, or is his talk page the ugliest combination of colours he could have chosen? --Kels 19:26, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

OK, this is current, from a page reached through the guidelines template [3] on the 90/10 rule:

This a proposed policy or guideline. It is not official, and does not have wide acceptance. Please regard it as tentative and formative.

The 90/10 rule is an injunction against spending 90% of one's time complaining, carping, cutting people down and forming cabals at Conservapedia - and only 10% actively helping to craft good encyclopedia articles.

This rule may be invoked any time a user starts to waste the time of productive writers with groundless complaints, specious arguments, et altii.

Anyone who wants to take part in this writing project should expect to spend 90% of their time writing articles and 10% or less on their personal agenda. (Writing articles means making worthwhile edits and includes discussion on talk pages about improving articles.)

* If something is to be done for commenting on talk pages too much, it should be a simple warning, "hey buddy, quit jabbering so much and start contributing." If that doesn't work, and they still only engage in useless arguments, block them for no more than a week.

You will note that the rule reads as we read it at first, but then near the end advises 90% "writing articles" and "10% or less" on the "personal agenda", whatever that means. humanbe in 19:12, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Unfortunately, because 90/10 is enforced so haphazardly, any rational analysis of it is practically impossible. --AKjeldsen 08:50, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
I usually refer to the "if 90% talk" version as "Andy's version" and to the "90% writing" version as "Ed's version" (after the ones who coined the phrases when writing down the official versions in the Commandment/Guideline).
And both versions leave WAY too much room for interpretation since you basically can't apply it with good conscience unless you literally analyze every edit ever made by a person. If you try to limit your time to, say, ten minutes per person, you basically have to settle on some sort of fuzzy approximation or generalization (like "All mainspace edits are good edits, all other ones are bad edits, calculate ratio based on that"), and those really aren't precise. Of course, this means that a sysop can basically choose the method that best supports the desired result. --Sid 10:31, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah. And that's under ideal conditions, i.e. the sysop in question has actually taken the trouble to count the contributions, rather than just throwing out the accusation at random. Maybe the Dicta can show some extra light on the issue, BTW? --AKjeldsen 10:43, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
You mean Reginod's Dicta? Or something else? *cocks head* I think there are a few good quotes that give a hint on how long it takes Andy to do a 90/10 review... --Sid 12:18, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Andy doesn't "do a review", he simply accuses. I have searched long and hard for when he accused me of it (at that point I had about 500 article edits out of 1500), and was promptly corrected by another user. I really, really want to find it so I can link & quote. humanbe in 12:24, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if there's some connection here to Andy's rather original use of Godspeed? --Kels 20:10, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Of course: "Aha! 90/10 violation! 90% deceitful liberal! Godspeed!" Andy in a, um, nutshell. humanbe in 20:19, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Analysis 15 June 2007, 16:09 to 16:27 50 contributions...[edit]

  1. 4 Users created
  2. 3 Images uploaded
  3. 3 Protected pages (most related to the blocks)
  4. 1 Deleted page
  5. 4 Blocks (most of which correspond to the 4 users created)
  6. 8 Comments on user talk pages
  7. 1 Entry on a talk page, probably a spoof
  8. 21 Undoubtly spoof entries
  9. 5 potentially "real" contributions, two by Conservative on a locked page

10%! Looks like Conservapedia as a whole violates the 90-10 rule... Go, Conservapedia, go! Sterile 15:38, 15 June 2007 (CDT)


I'd like to bring up the point made before on this talk page that the rule is the opposite: 90% talk and 10% edits. So technically, none of the sysops are breaking the rule. ThunderkatzHo! 22:28, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

When is this typically enforced?[edit]

Is the 90/10 rule typically enforced when Andy (or someone else) is losing a debate and he has no other way to end it? It would be interesting to do a study on it, except I can't get all that motivated. In the few examples I saw, the people who were blocked for 90/10 were being reasonably respectful and civil, and they had factual bases for the points they were making. I mentioned that here, and expected to get blocked for it, but somehow that edit got ignored. --Elkman 23:00, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes.PFoster 23:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)


This article needs to be rewritten. The first and second paragraphs flat-out contradict each other. The statistics are all wrong, because they follow the first paragraph (90% edits, 10% talk) when the second paragraph is actually the right one (90% talk, 10% edits). ThunderkatzHo! 11:31, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I really need to work on my reading skills. I still don't like it the way it is. ThunderkatzHo! 11:32, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
I agree that a rewrite is needed. The page as it is (& the mention of 90/10 in the Conservapedia article) is misinterpreting the rule, suggesting that editors are supposed to spend 90+% of edits on articles & less than 10% on talk. In fact it is the other way around: the rule stipulates that editors spending approx 90% of their edits on talk should be banned. Obviously the rule is enforced arbitrarily & used as an excuse for blocks, but we should be accurate in presenting what it is supposed to be. The statistics implying that most sysops are breaking the rule by doing about 40% or 50% talk are incorrect. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 08:55, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
As nobody has responded, I have corrected this myself. I've moved the study statistics below as obviously somebody has spent some time collating them, & they may be useful for something, but they do not prove what they claim to. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 16:47, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Study - removed from the article because it is inaccurate[edit]

NB I have removed this from the article because it was misrepresenting the 90/10 rule as enforcing 90% article edits & 10% talk only. This is incorrect. The rule is against spending 90% of edits on talk. So in fact all the users listed below were complying with the rule. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 16:45, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually it's pretty old hat now, Most of the users are gone and the active sysops are down to a handful. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease 18:52, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
We well know by now that the "90/10 rule" has no mathematical basis. It is just a block reason. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:37, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
I think they can read it around either way they like. 90/10 for some, 10/90 for others (I can imagine the Great Leader standing there and proclaiming "Wiki Editors are created equal... but some are more equal than others!" right now.)? And don't forget that gem where if a user makes 1 edit to a talk page, then 1 divided by 1 = 100%, therefore a 90/10 violation either way. ArmondikoVbomination 04:03, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

A small study was done with the first 10 users with a valid user page and more than 50 edits on the user list. There results were thus:

Users Complying[edit]

Users Breaking[edit]


A check with this tool revealed that, as of October 17, 2007, only three of the 22 admins active within the previous month were in compliance with the rule as enforced.

Admins Complying[edit]

Admins Breaking[edit]

  • Aschlafly; 3323 talk edits out of 15999 (20.8%)
  • BenjaminS; 308 talk edits out of 1150 (26.8%)
  • BethanyS; 360 talk edits out of 1225 (29.4%)
  • CPWebmaster; 104 talk edits out of 691 (15.1%)
  • Conservative; 3600 talk edits out of 12986 (27.7%)
  • Crocoite; 417 talk edits out of 2998 (13.9%)
  • DanH; 822 talk edits out of 4012 (20.5%)
  • DeborahB.; 274 talk edits out of 2592 (10.6%)
  • Ed Poor; 3009 talk edits out of 10769 (27.9%)
  • Geo.plrd; 378 talk edits out of 1759 (21.5%)
  • Hoji; 1721 talk edits out of 4542 (37.9%)
  • Karajou; 1102 talk edits out of 5104 (21.6%)
  • Philip J. Rayment; 2547 talk edits out of 5363 (47.5%)
  • PhilipB; 167 talk edits out of 966 (17.3%)
  • RSchlafly; 574 talk edits out of 1230 (46.7%)
  • RobSmith; 3780 talk edits out of 12881 (29.3%)
  • TK; 5996 talk edits out of 10579 (56.7%)
  • TerryH; 523 talk edits out of 2007 (26.1%)
  • Will N.; 421 talk edits out of 1193 (35.3%)

Never intended to be enforced[edit]

We say, "The rule has never been officially approved as site policy," But commandment 7 of the Conservapedia commandments states: "Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account". Have I misunderstood our point, or does the article need to be updated?--Bobbing up 05:32, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Ah now I get it. They have two versions of the rule with the percentages switched. Thy don't understand their own rule!--Bobbing up 06:18, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Why am I not surprised? Totnesmartin 07:25, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Nothing to do with Conservapedia...[edit]

...but this page made me do a double-take! Totnesmartin 19:24, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Is Roger violating the 90/10 rule?[edit]

Just look at how many talkpage edits RSchlafly did from November 2008 to January 2009! AP 21:56, 1 February 2009 (EST)

The 90/10 rule is for blocking dissidents, not managing the wiki. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:03, 1 February 2009 (EST)

There I was thinking[edit]

... this applied to the proportion of created/misinterpreted material to actual facts on CP.

Another reason why I wouldn't last on CP (along with BritEnglish and accepting scientific evidence). Anna Livia (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, Conservapedia uses American English. Oh, you were referring to yourself. –Hnio80 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)