Who are the Wikipediocracy Posters?

[Randy from Boise]

In my ongoing quest to avoid sitting down to finish the biography of Harry Ebding (T-H-L), I dove into the list of registered accounts at Wikipediocracy, databasing them into a sortable form.

A few observations that will hopefully defang the bogeyman a little bit for our friends from outside this orbit.

1. There aren't that many registered accounts here.

This site has been doing its thing since March 14, 2012. In a little over 12 years, there have been a total of 1,353 accounts registered, or about 113 accounts per year, just under 10 per month.

Then again, my database of Wikipedia Administrators shows 854 currently with the buttons — with fewer than a quarter of those reckoned to be "very active editors" in WMF parlance, with 100+ edits in the last month. And there are, maybe at the outside, 2,000 editors without buttons contributing at a similar level. So it's a smaller group, but not that much smaller.

2. The most active posters at WPO are old timers.

Of the 20 top posters of all time, only two joined the site after 2013 — #14 Beeblebrox in 2016 and #18 Giraffe Stapler in 2019. And Mr. Stapler is probably an alt account of an earlier name since that name was an ultra-inside baseball parody of the handle Graf Statler from Wikipedia Sucks.

Top poster is Vigilant, showing about 31,600 posts; then Greg Kohs/The Kohser with 13,400 or so — he's moved along to more rational activities these days. Good dude. I'm third at around 12,100. Eric Barbour, now at Wikipedia Sucks and gone from here, is fourth at just under 10,900; and Administrator Midsize Jake fills out the top five, at about 9,900.

That doesn't seem like a murderer's row of anti-Wikipedian venom, does it?

Some still-active names you are apt to see posting of the top 20 include #8 Tarantino (just over 4700 posts); #14 Beeblebrox, an ex-Arb (just under 3800); #15 Kelly Martin, who needs to stop by more often (coming up on 3400); #14 Andy the Grump, a Wikipedian (about 3200); #17 Dan Murphy, who like Kelly sadly only drops in now and again (about 3200); #18 Giraffe Stapler (3100); #19 Anroth (just over 3000); and #20 Ming (coming up on 3000).

Again, that's not exactly a scary crew... I don't see why some people get their undies in a bundle...


3. There are a ton of people just here to read.

There are 491 accounts out of the 1,353 (36.3%) who have never posted a single time, ever — just here to read in the invisible-to-web-crawlers so-called "Members Only" area, presumably. Another 106 (7.8%) have only posted one time ever. That makes a total of 44.1% of registrants in the history of this site who have posted 1 time or fewer...

That's fine, of course. Post or not. Read or not.

4. Establishment of new accounts seems to be more constant than the establishment of very active Wikipedian accounts and is actually on an uptick.

Many of the core content people and Administrators at Wikipedia came on board between 2003 and 2007. There has been a very, very slow influx of newcomers in recent years.

Here is the data series for account start dates at WPO:

2012 (9.5 months) — 160
2013 — 130
2014 — 122
2015 — 170
2016 — 71
2017 — 43
2018 — 72
2019 — 82
2020 — 66
2021 — 104
2022 — 92
2023 — 177
2024 (3.25 months) — 56 [projects to about 207]

The median start date for the 1,353 accounts at WPO is September 2, 2017.

The median new account start date for the 854 active Administrators is November 11, 2005.


I'm not privy to "Last Visit" data, which I assume exists to the site administrators.

Anyway, hopefully that deboogifies things a little bit.


tim

[Kraken]

.
Top poster is Vigilant, showing about 31,600 posts; then Greg Kohs/The Kohser with 13,400 or so — he's moved along to more rational activities these days. Good dude. I'm third at around 12,100. Eric Barbour, now at Wikipedia Sucks and gone from here, is fourth at just under 10,900; and Administrator Midsize Jake fills out the top five, at about 9,900.

That doesn't seem like a murderer's row of anti-Wikipedian venom, does it?

You might have to explain that.

Here's the fun part. All five are on a plane being transferred to a supermax. The shackles malfunction and all are released simultaneously. What happens next?

[Bezdomni]

.
Top poster is Vigilant, showing about 31,600 posts; then Greg Kohs/The Kohser with 13,400 or so — he's moved along to more rational activities these days. Good dude. I'm third at around 12,100. Eric Barbour, now at Wikipedia Sucks and gone from here, is fourth at just under 10,900; and Administrator Midsize Jake fills out the top five, at about 9,900.

That doesn't seem like a murderer's row of anti-Wikipedian venom, does it?

You might have to explain that.

Here's the fun part. All five are on a plane being transferred to a supermax. The shackles malfunction and all are released simultaneously. What happens next?

Perhaps Zoloft (14,000+ posts) sedates them with a dart gun, then Taxwoman (25,599 posts) serves them with papers, before Poetlister (25,599 posts) can eat them?

[tarantino]

I'm not privy to "Last Visit" data, which I assume exists to the site administrators.

tim

The "last active" column in the members list is actually the last visit.

[Anroth]

Here's the fun part. All five are on a plane being transferred to a supermax. The shackles malfunction and all are released simultaneously. What happens next?

Have you seen Con Air?

[Randy from Boise]

.
Top poster is Vigilant, showing about 31,600 posts; then Greg Kohs/The Kohser with 13,400 or so — he's moved along to more rational activities these days. Good dude. I'm third at around 12,100. Eric Barbour, now at Wikipedia Sucks and gone from here, is fourth at just under 10,900; and Administrator Midsize Jake fills out the top five, at about 9,900.

That doesn't seem like a murderer's row of anti-Wikipedian venom, does it?

You might have to explain that.

Here's the fun part. All five are on a plane being transferred to a supermax. The shackles malfunction and all are released simultaneously. What happens next?

Ha ha, a more likely scenario is that we're on a passenger plane, Jake and Vig are in first class taking about engineering stuff, Kohs and I are bullshitting about football in coach, and then there's Eric. He's the one the sky marshal is watching very, very closely...

t

[Randy from Boise]

.
Top poster is Vigilant, showing about 31,600 posts; then Greg Kohs/The Kohser with 13,400 or so — he's moved along to more rational activities these days. Good dude. I'm third at around 12,100. Eric Barbour, now at Wikipedia Sucks and gone from here, is fourth at just under 10,900; and Administrator Midsize Jake fills out the top five, at about 9,900.

That doesn't seem like a murderer's row of anti-Wikipedian venom, does it?

You might have to explain that.

Here's the fun part. All five are on a plane being transferred to a supermax. The shackles malfunction and all are released simultaneously. What happens next?

Perhaps Zoloft (14,000+ posts) sedates them with a dart gun, then Taxwoman (25,599 posts) serves them with papers, before Poetlister (25,599 posts) can eat them?

Weird those two didn't show on my database. I was just copy-pasting from the list and running a sort with Excel...

I blame the GIGO monster. Good catch though!

t

P.S. Nope, neither one are in the database at all. Did I miss a page of 15? Something else???

P.P.S. Taxwoman = Poetlister, of course.

[Randy from Boise]

I'm not privy to "Last Visit" data, which I assume exists to the site administrators.

tim

The "last active" column in the members list is actually the last visit.

My last field showing is JOINED.

You've got the special Admin list 'cuz you're special!

t

[tarantino]

I'm not privy to "Last Visit" data, which I assume exists to the site administrators.

tim

The "last active" column in the members list is actually the last visit.

My last field showing is JOINED.

You've got the special Admin list 'cuz you're special!

t

Oh, I didn't realize that. I thought everyone could see it.

[rnu]

I am number 38. The only account in the top 50 who joined in this decade. (Blue Newt is at #56 as the next account created in the 2020s.)

Please excuse me while I go and contemplate about my life choices.

[Cheryl]

3. There are a ton of people just here to read.

There are 491 accounts out of the 1,353 (36.3%) who have never posted a single time, ever — just here to read in the invisible-to-web-crawlers so-called "Members Only" area, presumably. Another 106 (7.8%) have only posted one time ever. That makes a total of 44.1% of registrants in the history of this site who have posted 1 time or fewer...

I've posted a few times, but my compelling reason for creating an account here was to be able to use the "unread posts" and "mark forums read" quick links.

[Vigilant]

.
Top poster is Vigilant, showing about 31,600 posts; then Greg Kohs/The Kohser with 13,400 or so — he's moved along to more rational activities these days. Good dude. I'm third at around 12,100. Eric Barbour, now at Wikipedia Sucks and gone from here, is fourth at just under 10,900; and Administrator Midsize Jake fills out the top five, at about 9,900.

That doesn't seem like a murderer's row of anti-Wikipedian venom, does it?

You might have to explain that.

Here's the fun part. All five are on a plane being transferred to a supermax. The shackles malfunction and all are released simultaneously. What happens next?

We sit down and have a beer.

Eric and I are slightly rude to each other.

[Vigilant]

I am number 38. The only account in the top 50 who joined in this decade. (Blue Newt is at #56 as the next account created in the 2020s.)

Please excuse me while I go and contemplate about my life choices.

Come back!

We'll show you the secret handshake.

[tarantino]

The top fifteen posters I see. About half are banned, muted or disappeared years ago.

Wikipediocracy - Members.png

[Randy from Boise]

The top fifteen posters I see. About half are banned, muted or disappeared years ago.

Wikipediocracy - Members.png

Kumioko didn't show up on my list either...

Very few of those actually still around.

I wish Poetlister didn't get axed, I liked what he brought to the table in terms of hunting the web for every mention of Wikipedia, no matter how far-flung, as a news aggregator.

The biggest takeaway for me out of this little exercise was seeing that WPO's new registration is actually up in a significant way. I'm not sure how to interpret that since Wikipedia really hasn't had a big scandal since Fram. Was that 2023? It seems like it was earlier than that... [N.B. Summer of 2019. Time flies...]

We've all seen over the years that WP controversy drives the traffic levels here. Why'd things spike last year? No clue.

tim

[Elinruby]

The top fifteen posters I see. About half are banned, muted or disappeared years ago.

Wikipediocracy - Members.png

Kumioko didn't show up on my list either...

Very few of those actually still around.

I wish Poetlister didn't get axed, I liked what he brought to the table in terms of hunting the web for every mention of Wikipedia, no matter how far-flung, as a news aggregator.

The biggest takeaway for me out of this little exercise was seeing that WPO's new registration is actually up in a significant way. I'm not sure how to interpret that since Wikipedia really hasn't had a big scandal since Fram. Was that 2023? It seems like it was earlier than that... [N.B. Summer of 2019. Time flies...]

We've all seen over the years that WP controversy drives the traffic levels here. Why'd things spike last year? No clue.

tim

Grabowski maybe.

[Zoloft]

>>Kumioko didn't show up on my list either...

Kumioko 6609 Sun Mar 03, 2013 3:36 am (he's muted but not banned)

>>I wish Poetlister didn't get axed, I liked what he brought to the table in terms of hunting the web for every mention of Wikipedia, no matter how far-flung, as a news aggregator.

Oh, that's because he volunteered to copy posts from our news aggregator, which is on the right column of our front page as 'Wikipedia in the News.' I set that up years ago.

[Kraken]

The biggest takeaway for me out of this little exercise was seeing that WPO's new registration is actually up in a significant way. I'm not sure how to interpret that since Wikipedia really hasn't had a big scandal since Fram. Was that 2023? It seems like it was earlier than that... [N.B. Summer of 2019. Time flies...]

We've all seen over the years that WP controversy drives the traffic levels here. Why'd things spike last year? No clue.

UCOC, bias, banners, redundancies, a particularly bad ArbCom election, are just a few that immediately sprang to mind.

It's Wikipedia. There's always stuff going on.

[Zoloft]

In my ongoing quest to avoid sitting down to finish the biography of Harry Ebding (T-H-L), I dove into the list of registered accounts at Wikipediocracy, databasing them into a sortable form.

A few observations that will hopefully defang the bogeyman a little bit for our friends from outside this orbit.

1. There aren't that many registered accounts here.

This site has been doing its thing since March 14, 2012. In a little over 12 years, there have been a total of 1,353 accounts registered, or about 113 accounts per year, just under 10 per month.

<snip>

Ah, there's something you don't know. When I was the server administrator, I would delete inactive accounts - my rules were:

• Any account that registered and never logged on again for a year.
• Any account that never posted, and then was inactive for more than a year.

I left a few exceptions behind, mostly familiar names that I hoped would eventually show up again.

I have come back and done this exercise a couple of times in the last few years, notifying the team first.

I estimate I deleted about 1,200 registered but inactive accounts.

This is done as a security measure.

[C&B]

I'm not privy to "Last Visit" data, which I assume exists to the site administrators.

tim

The "last active" column in the members list is actually the last visit.

My last field showing is JOINED.

You've got the special Admin list 'cuz you're special!

t

Slight diversion, but there is something funny about it... there is a 'Last activity' field in a members' profile. But it doesn't seem visible all the time. For example, in Randy and Tarantino's profiles, it is blank (to me anyway): 'Last active: - '.

but e.g. Anroth says 'Last active: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:34 am', Zoloft 'Last active: Tue Apr 09, 2024 10:16 am'. Etc.

Perhaps there is a setting where it can be hidden in our own profile

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Slight diversion, but there is something funny about it... there is a 'Last activity' field in a members' profile. But it doesn't seem visible all the time. For example, in Randy and Tarantino's profiles, it is blank (to me anyway): 'Last active: - '.

but e.g. Anroth says 'Last active: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:34 am', Zoloft 'Last active: Tue Apr 09, 2024 10:16 am'. Etc.

Perhaps there is a setting where it can be hidden in our own profile

When you log in, there's a "Hide my online status this session" checkbox.

[Randy from Boise]

Ah, there's something you don't know. When I was the server administrator, I would delete inactive accounts - my rules were:

• Any account that registered and never logged on again for a year.
• Any account that never posted, and then was inactive for more than a year.

I left a few exceptions behind, mostly familiar names that I hoped would eventually show up again.

I have come back and done this exercise a couple of times in the last few years, notifying the team first.

I estimate I deleted about 1,200 registered but inactive accounts.

This is done as a security measure.

Consarn it, the GIGO monster has eaten my thread.

Implication is that the true median registration date is much older, the percentage of read-only accounts is much higher, and that I should spend more time working and less time goofing off...


t

[Konveyor Belt]

It would be interesting to do a census of sorts here on Wikipediocracy. Ask if they actively edit Wikipedia, how much they edit etc. with some optional demographic questions about age, gender, etc.

[tarantino]

Slight diversion, but there is something funny about it... there is a 'Last activity' field in a members' profile. But it doesn't seem visible all the time. For example, in Randy and Tarantino's profiles, it is blank (to me anyway): 'Last active: - '.

but e.g. Anroth says 'Last active: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:34 am', Zoloft 'Last active: Tue Apr 09, 2024 10:16 am'. Etc.

Perhaps there is a setting where it can be hidden in our own profile

When you log in, there's a "Hide my online status this session" checkbox.

Hide doesn't work for mods so I never check the box.