Conservapedia talk:90/10 rule

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search



  1. --Sure. Can I point out, too, that we should also enforce the gun laws-- er, rules we already have? Flippin 14:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  2. --I agree. --Joaquín Martínez 15:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


  1. --ColinRtalk 12:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I incorporated two of your ideas after you voted. --Ed Poor 12:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  2. I find it ironic that i'm voting against this on a talk page ... Jrssr5 13:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  3. Oppose. It doesn't actually harm CP to use talk pages, and this rule will encourage people to just edit away without discussing. Oh, and Jrssr5 has a point ... --Wikinterpretertalk?
  4. --Mtur 14:48, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  5. --Sulgran 23:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


While I recognize the good intention behind this rule, it's hard to correctly use it. After all, an editor could make mostly worthless edits, cause problems on talk pages, and yet not violate the 90/10 rule. Or an editor could work really hard on one or two amazing articles, engage in a lot of discussion on talk pages about improving said articles, get in a small squabble with a sysop, and get blocked for 90/10 violation. If we're going to be blocking "dissidents" for too much "talk page use," we need to base our blocks on more than just the number of edits. ColinRtalk 12:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

This rule is just an excuse to stifle criticism. Auld Nick 12:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nick, that's not true! (blocks your account ;-) --Ed Poor 12:29, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Even with the recent changes, I still oppose the rule. I think 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. I still don't like the idea of warning/blocking them, but I know it's going to happen regardless. ColinRtalk 12:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

The 90/10 rule does not differentiate individuals who are waisting time from those who are attempting to build or understand a consensus prior to making an edit. Ideally, talk pages serve to avoid edit wars on the main pages. Additionally, the 90/10 rule suggests that dozens of small edits (example) would artificially boost one's "factual edit" count without actually making worthwhile contributions by editing one word here and one word there. In essence it becomes trivial for anyone who knows of the rule to game the system and penalizes those who are trying to find the consensus before editing. (Side note: I had to go back and edit the entire page rather than the section to avoid having two edits here - one for the vote, one for the comment. Otherwise, it would damage my ratio more than a single edit.) --Mtur 14:48, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

"et alt" or "et al" for another.

"et altii" for more than one.

--Joaquín Martínez 15:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think anyone was thinking of applying the rule literally. And no one is saying to avoid using the talk pages. In my view, "attempting to build or understand a consensus prior to making an edit" counts as "writing". --Ed Poor 15:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
The issue is that occasionally when someone upsets a sysop they will pull out of their array of reasons to ban a person "You are in violation of 90/10" and move to ban them. It has been applied literally. Looking at the ratio of talk page to main page edits does not identify attempts to contact sysops about blocked pages, identify technical problems, identify consistency problems, or attempts at building a consensus. The numbers alone leave so much out that it is inappropriate to use them. As it stands, this appears to have the effect of "If you may in part cause a sysop who is having a bad day to get his or her hackles up, and have more than 90% talk page edits, you are in danger of being banned." This in turn leads to "If you are not a sysop, may annoy a sysop for some reason, and wish to contribute to Conservapedia, don't use the talk pages." It would seem to follow from this "do not use the talk pages unless you are in agreement with the sysops." I do not believe that such an underlying belief is a good one to have on an encyclopedia of any sort. --Mtur 15:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I must really commend mr. Poor for this attempt to make something sensible out of the 90/10 rule, but fundamentally, I really don't like the principle of this. As Auld Nick points out, in practice, the rule seems to be used only as a deterrent for criticism and to prevent having to answer difficult question. Besides, who's to say that making supposedly 'groundless complaints and specious arguments' doesn't help the project? Sometimes, it can be obviously pointless, but other times, such things are necessary to avoid groupthink and shake up paradigms. In other words, I think the 90/10 rule is at best fundamentally flawed and should be removed altogether. --AKjeldsen 15:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Wait a minute...

Commandment 7 says that unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and less than 10% quality edits. This isn't the same as "less than 90% quality edits and 10% talk. --Hojimachongtalk 19:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL, I was wondering when somebody would notice that. --Ed Poor 19:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Silly Ed :P --Hojimachongtalk 20:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Chalk it up to instruction creep. --Ed Poor 20:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you tell where you stand

Is there a way to tell where you stand within this rule?--TimS 10:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)


Even after innumerable blocks from it, the 90/10 rule is still only a proposition? Something wrong there... --PhilipV 16:40, 23 November 2008 (EST)

This proposed rule is not the same as the existing Commandment 7. Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 23 November 2008 (EST)
The 90/10 rule has been part of Commandment 7 for well over a year. There is no "contradiction" as the above heading falsely implies.--Aschlafly 08:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)