There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Conservapedia talk:90/10 Rule
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. weaseLOId~ 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.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 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. ħuman
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. ArmondikoVnarchist 04:03, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
- We well know by now that the "90/10 rule" has no mathematical basis. It is just a block reason. ħuman
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]
- 50Something (talk · contribs)
- AdrianP (talk · contribs)
- All Fish Welcome (talk · contribs)
- AKjeldsen (talk · contribs)
- ALFa (talk · contribs)
- ATB (talk · contribs)
- AdmiralSupreme (talk · contribs)
- Airdish (talk · contribs)
Administrators[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]
- Jallen; 519 talk edits out of 6069 (8.6%)
- Joaquin Martinez; 821 talk edits out of 8310 (9.9%)
- SharonS; 439 talk edits out of 4899 (9%)
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. ħuman
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)