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)

It would be interesting if see the data on Wikipedia in its first few years. I did learn that Wikipedia did not reach 450,000 entries, many of which are/were complete trivia (like the title of a rock song), until more than 4 years after it began. Also, I think Wikipedia copied tens of thousands of entries directly from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and many of those outdated entries remain to this day.--Aschlafly 14:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

something like this is the best I can do --Cgday 15:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, You're slightly off here. We're not talking about article count, unless you imply that the copying from Britannica led to tons of people suddenly contributing like crazy. And the landscape has radically changed. Wikipedia was effectively the first of its kind. People were not used to the concept and had general doubts that an open encyclopdia could work at all. Conservapedia builds up on years of foundation - hundreds of thousands of people know the wiki concept, and Wikipedia is the proof that it can work. Conservapedia had international press coverage and a massive traffic spike. And then... it ended. Very few people outside this site are paying attention to Conservapedia. Even the more recent press coverage mocks the site or just reports your choice quotes and doesn't dare to touch the issue of quality. Ask yourself why that is so.

And you have one problem that Wikipedia didn't have: Serious competition. Conservapedia has to answer a tough question: "Why shouldn't I simply go to Wikipedia?" - Your ominous "liberal bias" didn't cut it. It attracted a few people who share this view to some degree, but... that's it. --Sid 3050 15:23, 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

There is no "control" here. But we do adhere to our simple, clear rules. The numerous, repeated attempts to have obscene entries in violation of our rules have been astounding.--Aschlafly 14:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)