So you’re worried about traffic to your blog, and you pick some woman off the internet at random, make some crude remarks about her on your blog, then if she objects, claim you are being harassed and fire off a legal takedown notice. Should be good for a few page hits, right?
Let’s do the numbers, shall we?
From the time “Wikipediocracy takes no prisoners: Kohs fires off DMCA against Gender Desk” was published on October 3, until roughly some time this afternoon, about 67% of the page views can be traced to specific sources, in particular to four Wikipedia criticism sites: reddit (WikiInAction), Wikipediocracy, wikirev.org, and Wikipedia sucks.co. Since some, if not all of these sites are in the habit of doxing, I will not link to them
The highest volume site is clearly Reddit, with 46% of the traffic, followed by Wikipediocracy and Wikirev, with 28% and 18% of the traffic respectively, and Sucks trailing in a distant 4th place with 7% of the traffic. The duration of the traffic was different for each. Reddit’s attention span was the shortest, with the page hits concentrated almost completely in one day. Wikipediocracy managed to sustain interest for about two days. Wikirev and Sucks have both continued driving sustained traffic up to the present, which is surprising, considering that neither one seems to be seriously in the criticism business, in the sense of providing regularly published adult-level posts and commentary.
That leaves the remaining 33% of the page views unexplained. Could they be from the new super-seekrit r/Wikipediocracy reddit? (And no, I haven’t been invited.) Perhaps some passing troll or IP will drop by with the straight poop on that.
So enough the numbers, what about interpretation.
First, Reddit is kicking Wikipediocracy’s butt, and if I am not mistaken, those are all people that Wikipediocracy was too snooty to keep around. Looks like all those purges are coming home to roost. They should have kept Dark Knight, taught him how to make paragraphs, how to express himself without every other word being a pee-pee word, and how to cut his rants by at least two-thirds. He seems to be making paragraphs now and has stopped flaming–heaven forbid he should ever get any facts wrong himself–so they have missed some great potential.
Second, the missing Rogol is being credited with a lot of stuff, and I probably bear some of the blame for that, since I suggested he was holding up Wikipediocracy all by himself, with a little help from Poetlister and Kohs bumping the old threads in a way that you couldn’t see the recent edit count, not that the published edit counts on those things are at all reliable.
But what if it was just the normal cycle of things, and Wikipediocracy’s content had absolutely nothing to do with the lack of commenters, and that Rogol had nothing to do with the return of the natives. People do disappear in the summer, in fact there are whole countries that take July off, and probably August too. People go to the beach. They take vacations. Wikipedia people too, they are either all at Wikimania, or preparing for it, or moping around if they didn’t get a scholarship. So there is no one around to criticize either.
So Rogol steps into the void and posts some of his tedious rambling pseudo-philosophy, and disappears, then Newsfeed appears and posts some equally insufferable links with no context, and no appearance of knowing anything whatsoever about Wikipedia, before disappearing in turn. Then September hits, and the regulars return in droves. Were they all on strike from paid editing, and were suddenly offered new and more lucrative sockpuppet contacts? Or were they just at the beach? Or at Wikimania. We will probably never know, unless some passing troll or IP drops by with some enlightenment.
But let’s look at it from another angle. What if Rogol had never showed up, if Poetlister had not felt loquacious? Would Wikipediocracy have disappeared forever?
I think not. We have it from Somey, who appears to be some sort of Wikipediocracy regular, that “We’ll probably change the hosting arrangements before year-end”, so we know the hosting is paid up, for at least a while. Plus we have it from Zoloft/William Burns that the cost of running Wikipediocracy is about $500. If you estimate that the cost of web hosting is less than $3 a month, as this article states, then they are good to go for another 167 months, or 13 years. Plus I think we can be pretty sure that Kohs is not going to give up that domain name as long as he remains conscious and/or reasonably sane enough to understand what a domain name is.