Debate:Has conservapedia failed to reach a critical mass?

Did Conservapedia fail to capitalize on it's recent publicity and has it failed to reach a critical mass?

Is this downward trend likely to continue?

Discuss.

NO!

All the curiosity seekers have come and gone, leaving a stable of serious editors who can build the Conservapedia in relative peace. When the article count approaches 100,000, perhaps in a year, then many will take another look and hopefully like what they see. Teresita 13:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

do we have any figures on article growth? trends in editor numbers? --Cgday 13:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I have two snapshots of the Top 50 at User:Sid 3050/Popularity, spanning one week. But that's just that: One set of snapshots. --Sid 3050 14:38, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Comments

I think there is still time to reach a self-sustainable level wherein the editors and sysops could both add significant material at the same time reverting vandalism and generally keeping the place "tidy". A problem of sorts rears it's head because it seems as if there is an unwritten "policy" that seeks to control at all times, what is being placed upon these pages.

Just like a lawn, one has to expect a certain amount of weeds. One needs to start out with good soil from which grass seed can germinate and flourish. If one trods upon the seeds trying to ferret off each and every weed seed, the grass will also suffer, growing in clumps and spot and dying in other places.

Perhaps the thing to do is let the yard go? Let all that is to grow, grow; after a time it will be necessary to go in and pull weeds and allow the healthy good grass to fill in the spots left bare from this weeding. Chance the Gardener ^Talk