User talk:Tony Sidaway/Active Conservapedia editors

I had block rights and some other rights but was blocked I think for criticizing "Conservative" for his disgusting lies and defamations. I am not sure when I edited Conservapedia last. My username over there was NKeaton. To whichever admin might read this, I proved that "Conservative" said terrible things about women he disagrees with, like calling liberal Christian women "whores." I have another picture of one of his posts saying these terrible things. He is such a coward that he appears to have deleted these posts when more attention was called to them. He is not a good person to have the power to bully others.

I was glad to participate on Conservapedia sometimes. I couldn't write the few things I did and learn how to do wikis on Wikipedia. I was disappointed at being bullied by "Conservative" and then blocked. Please reconsider that. Nate Keaton (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see Andrew Schlafly blocked you for two years on July 25. You can see your edit history here.

If you want him to reconsider, you'll have to contact him. None of us here have any positive influence over his actions. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Conservapedia a wiki or a blog?

A discussion of the proposition that Conservapedia has degenerated into a blog for Andrew Schlafly and his friends started there (permanent link) and I've suggested that anyone interested in continuing it can do so here in this page, below. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The more interesting question, certainly more interesting than the artificial and meaningless wiki/blog dichotomy, is: "Is Conservapedia, as Sidaway argues, at risk of falling into a catastrophe, or is it doing exactly what the person who owns it wants it to do? Does it need to have >X editors in order to remain viable, however we chose to define "viable" ? Is it not the case that Sidaway does not realize that CP has had < X committed, non-parodist editors for a number of years now? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't need a lot of "committed" editors, just a stream of new editors dropping in and trying out so that as older editors leave they are replaced. For example JoeyJ first edited in May, 2013, and Wschact first edited in June, 2012. They could stop at any time and obviously aren't part of any ruling clique. If Conservapedia ceases attracting and keeping people like that, it will be one step closer to dying as its older editors burn out and move on. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That's two. One of them has already been blocked a couple of times, and the other makes shit contributions. If you're setting the bar that low for meaningful contributions, then your argument that CP is about to fall into some sort of crisis in the absence of a viable community of editors is pretty much shot. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying there are only two! After all I can see nearly 100 active editors. But those two alone are enough to illustrate that the site is in regular use as a wiki.

Now I confess I've never taken seriously this notion that Conservapedia is a blog of some sort, and I'm surprised that you're still pushing it in view if the weakness of the evidence provided. Perhaps one day I'll look at Recent Changes and see hardly anything but main page weirdness and discussion. Until then, it's clearly a wiki with a small and rapidly declining editorship. That's where I started and that's where I still am, because the facts show it plainly.

Becoming bloglike is certainly one of the most likely reactions Conservapedia might make in response to a catastrophic loss if editorship. The three or four most committed editors already expend a lot of effort on that kind of content. I'm reasonably sure that the catastrophic change, if it comes, will be swift. Then we'll see how they react. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you're either illiterate or a troll, because I'm not "still pushing" the "CP is a blog" idea: see above where I wrote :"The more interesting question, certainly more interesting than the artificial and meaningless wiki/blog dichotomy..." You say CP has "a small and rapidly declining editorship." No shit. I've probably said that three times to you on various pages here. GET THIS: it's had "a small and rapidly declining editorship" since about 2008, or maybe 2009. And that doesn't matter, because that's exactly what the owner wants, and, contrary to what you seem to think, there is no "catastrophe" afoot for CP, because the situation is exactly what the guy who owns CP wants it to be. Tell me what the "catastrophe" that you predicted might look like. If a non-catastrophic wiki has at least X editors making Y edits each over Z time-span, what are X, Y, and Z, and where is CP in relation to that. Because as someone who has observed CP from pretty much Day One, I 'm pretty sure that it could lose all of its editors except Andy and User:Conservative and it wouldn't look much different from what it has since, say, Obama's election. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 21:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay if you no longer think it's a blog (which I admit I didn't notice) I've obviously lost track of whatever it is we're supposed to be discussing, and if you're calling me silly names that's the end of all likelihood of a productive discussion.

I've already characterized the nature of the rapid decline Conservapedia is undergoing, based on the editing data, and I've also speculated on the kind of effects we could see if it crashes through the floor. I don't subscribe to, anf have already disowned, your algebraic formulation. I don't have a crystal ball, so if you're asking for more you're wasting your time. I'm just watching and describing what I see happening. If the rapid drop reverses I'll let you know. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Tony, CP started "rapidly declining" many years ago. It won't "crash through the floor" unless Andy's wife stops paying the bills. As far as the wiki/blog arguments... I am "on" a wiki (aquariumwiki.com) that has literally three active editors. It's still a live wiki - you can join and contribute, I did - it's just a very small community. CP won't let people join - or even watch (!) - and when they do let you, blocking and banning is their favorite hobby. I am not sure how you have lasted there for so long, especially when you also post here at "the vandal site" lol. ħuman 01:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this "conservapedia is not a wiki" meme: wikis need not be publicly accessible (see e.g. Intellipedia, a wiki used by US intelligence), active at all etc. This word specifies the modus operandi of a webpage (editing whole pages, as opposed to blogs and forums which have posts etc.) and redefining it makes it too vague. See CS Lewis on "gentleman" (I exceptionally agree with him on something.) Open minded (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Update November 13th

Just two weeks ago, on October 30, I reported that over a moving window of size 13 weeks, the active editorship of Conservapedia had fallen from 156 to 118 in just 27 days. Of those 118, 19 had subsequently been blocked for a period not less than one year, leaving 99 active editors.

The equivalent figure for the thirteen-week period ending November 13 is 111 active, of whom 22 are blocked for a year or more. This leaves 89 active editors.

Thus the active editorship (excluding blocked editors) has declined by 10% in two weeks. The decline is much less rapid than before, although 10% still represents a very high attrition rate. It is quite possible that this reduction in the attrition rate represents a recovery. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your police work, there, Tony. Let's say the 89 only loses 8% in the next quarter. Is that lowering of the attrition a recovery? ħuman 06:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember I'm using a 91 day moving window so if the second derivative (attrition rate) over 91 days drops a lot over just 14 days (and it did), there could be a recovery in progress even if attrition continues, as long as the rate falls. It's similar to the way a moving average computation smooths out short term changes. You don't know you have reversed a downward trend until the full window is cleared and the smoothed average starts to rise, but you can look at the second derivative and say "We cannot yet rule out a reversal in the trend." Sorry for the lack of clarity in the earlier comment. Does it make more sense now? --Tony Sidaway (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested might be happening, the drop reversed itself, mostly due to first-time edits rising fast, in December more than doubling the rate in November. Editing by established editors remains sluggish, though, and the proportion of editors blocked has also risen, now standing at 25%. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Update January 8th: rapid recovery

On December 8, 2013, the statistics showed that in the previous 91 days 112 users had edited Conservapedia at least once, of whom 22 had been blocked for a year or more. Today, one calendar month later, the numbers stand at 162, of whom 40 are currently blocked for a year or more. There does seem to be a quite rapid recovery. While some of this recovery may be because of recent press coverage, the recovery probably preceded it. A previous rapid decline turned around as I suggested could be happening in November. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Update January 27th: recovery continues

The recovery I remarked upon earlier this month continues, though I have reservations about the proportion of new editors who show any intention of staying long.

At this moment somebody is pelting Conservapedia with vandalism, which I find unconscionable. I will cease daily updates for now, but may resume if I can be bothered to script the process, which is usually fun and keeps me in touch with the often wondrous naivety and hypocrisy of the Conservapedians. When it's being stormed like this the figures lose validity and take too much effort to produce manually. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)