Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:10, 18 September 2009

"Archive1"

"/Archive1" the "archive" made at this time, was made by Nx. He would prefer we not refer to this as a subpage, for some reason. Lumenos 07:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Current Table of Contents of the writable "archive" which was, at this time, made by Nx. (It is on my watchlist. Your prayers shall not be forgotten oh brave dissenters. ;-) Lumenos 07:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

   * 1 What Conservapedia thinks about RationalWiki
   * 2 The "criticism" section
   * 3 Gibberish
   * 4 Hell!
   * 5 Wikiindex
   * 6 "Cyberbullying" section
   * 7 Why the page "RationalWiki" was protected

Proxima's recent rampage

Again, see previous. She edits and reverts with no real sense of how to write on a wiki, and has even blocked an editor for correcting her factual errors on this page. I don't see why she is an admin on this wiki considering her totalitarian tendencies. PS, she's also fairly illiterate in both English and wiki-skills. This wiki embarrasses itself by giving her control/power over other editors. Huw Powell 00:09, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd like to edit this article to fix the alleged "admin" Proxima Centauri's factual errors and grammatical disasters. Of course, I can't because she has locked the article from being edited to protect her link spamming to her pet wiki (Liberapedia). Sadly, this means she has also protected it from having any of her grotesque factual and grammatical mistakes repaired by anyone. Huw Powell 01:21, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Why is RationalWiki down?

Anyone can see these RationalWikians are being deliberately unpleasant. Only close insiders know what the real problem is though if the problem is what it seems RationalWiki will probably be back on or soon after the 6th of September. I don’t rule out that there may be a worse problem, I don’t rule out that there are legal problems involving those connected with Conservapedia or with any of the many who RationalWiki has branded practitioners of Pseudoscience. Many astrologers and other similar people quite likely have their livelihoods affected by what RationalWiki says and they will pay large sums of money to lawyers to stop what RationalWiki says about them. Proxima Centauri 02:17, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Lol. You, my friend, are quite crazy. Phantom Hoover 04:00, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Actually, anyone who's slightly more active at RationalWiki would know that. The better question is, why don't you allow those people WHO KNOW write the article instead of writing down your guesses. As for your speculation, dear god you're paranoid.

Well, she hasn't been around on RW lately, because of her strop about the whole Barbara Shack thing. She's always been convinced that someone will sue us, in spite of reality. Phantom Hoover 04:16, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Actually it was a fortune cookie. Tmtoulouse 17:01, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Why cant I edit this page?

What the f00k? f00k f88k f66k? k99f? Ace McWicked 11:16, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Put your suggestions here. Proxima Centauri 12:42, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Unlock the page and undo your reversions; unblock and apologize to Nx and Phantom Hoover. Then take a careful look at your reverting, locking, blocking, and oversighting habits and see where they might fit in better on the web... just a suggestion. Huw Powell 01:05, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Seconded- WikiIndex is for factual information, not pursuing personal vendettas, and if you made your own name public, that is not the wiki in question's fault. SuperJosh 06:13, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Human has a vendetta, it seems, against PC. --Arthro

Due to her labelling us all trolls when she gave her real name away and locking articles at least three times to keep her version up. Phantom Hoover 17:20, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

This isn't about PC's "name" issue any more, that was so last month. Now it's about her incompetent editing of the article and locking it to protect her edits. Huw Powell 03:56, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps then you should actually try to compromise instead of reverting each other edits, eh? --Arthro

They've already tried that CUR. If everyone just left this whole clusterf*ck alone, people would soon forget about the whole PC-naming incident. If PC stops digging up this issue - which in itself is just drawing attention to the fact that her real name is/was known - I think everyone could just get on with their wiki lives. This whole naming thing happened ages ago (over a year wasn't it?) and it's still being brought up today. SuperJosh 13:00, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

Josh, this wasn't anything to do with her name. It was her keeping an appallingly bad version of the article up by locking it and blocking dissenters. Phantom Hoover 15:03, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

I didn't bring it up here, they did. Proxima Centauri 14:59, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

Edit wars

I apologize that some of my edits became the basis for edit wars. I wanted to clarify some things. Lumenos 11:30, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

About this exchange:

As of Aug 22, RationalWiki and related sites such as RationalWikiWiki and the RationalWiki forum, are inaccessible

As of Aug 19, RationalWiki and related sites such as RationalWikiWiki and the RationalWiki forum, are inaccessible

"Proxima, maybe I remember the date better, since I was there, and maybe I can READ THE F---ING DATE ON THE BLOG POST" (Nx edit summary)

This was a misunderstanding. I posted the date originally and I meant that at the time of Aug 22, the site was still down. I posted that on Aug 22. Lumenos 11:30, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Please understand, our beef was not with your version (which was, admittedly, flawed), but with Proxima's out of place addition of advertisements for Liberapedia and her insistence that removing content was totally disallowed. Phantom Hoover 12:11, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

I suppose the beef may have been updated, but I'm just pointing out that that particular beef appeared to be due to an ambiguous statement. ~~This might be one of those "inaccuracies", if there is more than one.~~ Lumenos 12:37, 30 August 2009 (EDT) This might be one of Proxima's "inaccuracies" that I keep reading about, if there is more than one. Lumenos 02:54, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

OK. I realise that the statement is somewhat ambiguous, but there were other flaws. Phantom Hoover 12:41, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

I will attempt to write with less ambiguity in the future. Lumenos 02:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Lumenos, my problem was not with you making a mistake, my problem was with PC's inability to read or think before clicking revert, lock and block. Nx 12:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't think I'd like to confess to making any "mistake" per se, until I know what "as of" means. Do you feel it was foolish of you:

1st to leave it reading "as of" instead of changing it to "on" as I have done? Lumenos 07:18, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
2nd to assume that you understood what it meant and that we were too stupid to put the correct date? Lumenos 07:22, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
3rd to explode at the sysop? Was someone just saying to me how unnice something was? Who was that? Lumenos 07:22, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Similar wikis

Please place or move arguments here for what makes a wiki notable and similar enough to RationalWiki, to be included in the "See also" section. [Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for not anticipating this (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). Lumenos 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]

What criteria will include these:

Atheism Wiki
Debatepedia wiki also discusses controversial topics -- but puts both viewpoints side-by-side on the same page.
FreeThoughtPedia
Iron Chariots
RationalWikiWiki meta site for RationalWiki.

And exclude these:

Liberapedia

Easy. Websites with an aim of discussing controversial topics. Liberapedia isn't meant to do that; it desperately wants to be a parody of Conservapedia, a direction RationalWiki has been moving away from significantly (I'm told that before the crash it was agreed to purge the mainspace of CP references). Phantom Hoover 12:33, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Who should define the intentions of a wiki, those who are sympathetic of the wiki or those who are critical? Lumenos 12:43, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Those who are in charge. As the mob is in charge at RW, there is no easy way to ask it, but the mission statement sums it up. I really think that DebatePedia should be removed, as it has little to do with the mission statement; the atheism ones are OK, because atheism and rationalism are closely related. Phantom Hoover 12:48, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

So who is in charge of Liberapedia? Lumenos 12:52, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Proxima. Phantom Hoover 12:53, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

And this is their official mission statement:

Liberapedia gives the opinions of American Liberals and left leaning people worldwide. Liberapedia aims to entertain as well as educate. Some of the articles are serious. Other articles are satirical and shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Yet more articles mix truth with satire. We hope users will like to contribute to Liberapedia and will enjoy reading articles.

Phantom Hoover 12:55, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

And who is qualified to interpret that in this context? Lumenos 12:58, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Anyone. That's the whole point of a wiki. Phantom Hoover 13:00, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

I mean how will you resolve a dispute? Lumenos 13:02, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Is it within the realm of possibility that if Proxima (because she is in charge) were judging she would say that Liberapedia does the following?:

Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people.
Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas.
Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

Lumenos 13:52, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome)

I moved this to subpage, Nx moved it back out here. I do not endorse edits I made in this section of this incomplete debate map. Read this if you like being confused (reading my possibly confused edits) due to extreme sleep deprivation. Nx seemed to concede the "stated topic" point anyway. (See edit in bold.) Lumenos 13:29, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

(Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument in favor. Only bullet arguments favoring the inclusion of Liberpedia info. I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds. Lumenos 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT)) [Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for not anticipating this (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). Lumenos 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]

They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia. (Posted by Lumenos)

As I said, RationalWiki is now trying to move away from that, mainly due to the fact that the most entertaining part of watching CP was seeing Andy bested in an argument by everyone and then blocking them all, which TK has put an end to. Phantom Hoover 13:04, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, perhaps someone is trying. :) Lumenos 13:09, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

What about those who liked the olden days of RationalWiki, and they are looking for a wiki that is inclusive of criticism of Conservapedia? (We are not looking for exact similarity. If RW is changing this makes Liberapedia more notable, not less.) Lumenos 13:54, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

I believe RationalWiki was founded by people who were banned or left Conservapedia willingly. Others may be leaving Conservapedia for the same reason. They may have heard something about RationalWiki, and want some place to post their "grievance", or analysis (with sources). Where would be a better place for them to do that, Liberapedia or RationalWiki? Lumenos 14:29, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Like i said, we are not removing the Conservapedia namespace. We are removing references to CP in mainspace, which wouldn't make sense to someone who doesn't know a thing about CP, or aren't really notable (e.g. Andy's opinion on spinach in the spinach article, if we had one, etc.) Nx 14:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

So I suppose you are saying that they may be able to post this info to your wiki. Shucks, well I guess we could always use this as evidence of "They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia." I don't know how you expect to argue your way out of a catch 22. Notice it doesn't work the other way around. Like if you prove that you pay no attention to Conservapedia, this doesn't imply Liberapedia would not be of interest to those reading this article. I think this is getting to be a dead horse. Lumenos 15:31, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I think I completely lost track there. What are we arguing about again? I was trying to clear the misconception that RW seems to be deleting CP related material and that there is significant opposition or not enough support for this. Nx 15:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Ok, I think I understand now, you're arguing for including a link to Liberapedia in this article. If that is so, I'm afraid your efforts to to defeat me in this debate have been in vain, because I have no problem with that (though your argument is a bit stretched because Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP). But then again I'm not familiar with Liberapedia's content enough to make a judgement here. Nx 16:01, 31 August 2009 (EDT)[Bold added by Lumenos 13:27, 10 September 2009 (EDT)]

RationalWiki may "purge the mainspace of [Conservapedia] references", which may alienate a significant number of users who may be interested in a wiki that is inclusive of criticism of Conservapedia (and maybe less deletionist). (Posted by Lumenos)

We do have an extensive Conservapedia namespace. Phantom Hoover 13:56, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Is this a rebuttal or misplaced supporting argument? ;-) Lumenos 06:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

We are only purging mainspace of CP, we won't delete the CP related material in the CP namespace - for example, our article on historical revisionism shouldn't focus on TK's oversighting. Nx 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

How many agree with that plan? Lumenos 14:10, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Exactly 47 users. Seriously though, you're asking as if it weren't generally accepted that this is a good thing. Nx 14:17, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Was I? If you have a source for your review that would be appreciated. A petition or vote perhaps. Lumenos 14:29, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

At the very least, Human would have to be on board, right? Lumenos 14:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Not necessarily on board, it's enough if he doesn't object. But you can also ask him. No there's no petition or vote, it's generally accepted as a good thing, especially as CP is dying, RW needs to move away and widen its focus. I have yet to see anyone oppose this. And with RW being down, I can't provide any references, even if I knew where to find some. Nx 14:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Well there we go, an reviewer who is very active (although sympathetic) claims they have never heard opposition. That is notable in my view. Lumenos 15:21, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

So? What are you getting at? Again, you imply we're doing something bad and are trying to deny it... Nx 15:50, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

No I'm conceding your argument here and using it as evidence that some reviews of wikis can be valuable even if they are unsourced. Lumenos 16:05, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

~~Being that we are discussing merely a link, it doesn't take up very much space or detract from the article.~~ (Posted by Lumenos)

It wasn't the link that was advertisement; it was her inserting a paragraph promoting LP as an alternative source of CP criticism. Phantom Hoover 13:57, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

We could definitely use some help establishing a criteria to define "advertisements" in this sort of context, if you believe you are qualified to make this judgment alone or establish consensus or at least some "consensus groups", to move forward on this issue. Lumenos 02:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

If we add only a link to Liberapedia, this would not take up very much space or detract from the article. (Posted by Lumenos)

Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should NOT be included (rebuttals welcome)

(Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument. Only bullet arguments opposing the inclusion of Liberpedia info. I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds. Lumenos 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT))[Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for not anticipating this (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). Lumenos 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]

If LP devotes a lot of time to CP this information should be in the LP article and the CP article. It is not, of itself, an argument for it to be in the RW article.--Bob M 05:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Agreed that it should be in the Liberpedia article and the Conservapedia article, but I don't see how that has any bearing on it being included here. Readers may be interested in RationalWiki for its criticism of religious fundamentalism. They may be interested in Liberapedia for the same reason. Lumenos 08:33, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

What is Liberapedia about anyway

I thought it was a parody of CP (a leftist equivalent), but it seems it sometimes gets confused and thinks it's a serious encyclopedia refuting CP and fundamentalism. Nx 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Allowance of (critical) reviews

[I moved two chunks of dialog here as it is more relevant to this topic Lumenos 17:22, 31 August 2009 (EDT)]

Proxima and I would like to assimilate Wikinfo's policy wherein the mainpage is written in a sympathetic format and a link at the top of the article leads to a page devoted to criticism. Lumenos 13:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Being that you are a respected member of a community, I would like to feature your criticism with your signature, in the article Criticism of Liberpedia, in a section for RationalWikians. This would mean we would also create a Criticism of RationalWiki article which you may be able to help with also. Both articles should follow any other polices that are established. Sound like a plan? Lumenos 13:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't really think there's a need for a separate article for criticism, what's wrong with a criticism section? I simply don't see how a separate article solves any problems. Also, I'm not fond of the idea of including "user reviews" of wikis, because that's just a way to circumvent referencing (it's just an opinion, it doesn't need to be substantiated...). Note that I'm not against criticism being presented. Ideally, this wiki should have admins who oversee the content of articles, so that any criticism is well referenced and true. Nx 13:34, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

So you are okay then with having a criticism section in the RationalWiki article? Lumenos 13:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I never said I wasn't. I'm opposed to PC using this article as her little playground and locking out everyone else. She has Liberapedia for that. Nx 13:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

...if we require user reviews are referenced? Lumenos 13:51, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Probably most wikis wouldn't need more than a little criticism section, but look at all that has been posted to talk pages. Lumenos 13:57, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Having separate pages would allow us to leave one unprotected while the other is protected, if edit warring is only happening on one of them. Lumenos 13:57, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

It wouldn't work in practice, because if the main article is not protected, the link to the criticism article can be removed. Nx 14:00, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps not if editors believe that would only mean the main article would be protected, and the link replaced. Lumenos 14:08, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I doubt that would happen in practice. Nx 14:20, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

(ec) I'm more opposed to the format. I don't think it's a good idea to have a bunch of random people saying "I like this place very much they are teh funney.", with the occasional "They are very mean because they reverted my extremely well written and unbiased additions, see here." Nx 13:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

They would be required to provide sources for that information, but I don't see that it does much damage otherwise. It is obviously just someone's claimed experience. Now if they have a certain reputation on the other hand... this is why I suggest there be signed posts. Just like that debate up there about linking to Liberapedia. Lumenos 14:08, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Like I said, I don't like the format. It's non-encyclopedic, redundant, and generally a mess. But that's just my 2c. Nx 14:20, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Well we could always use talk pages for all these opinions and whatnot. Lumenos 14:46, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Proxima did say she felt the Wikinfo approach was cumbersome, so ~~I guess we will try out just having sections for criticism, since Nx seems to prefer this also.~~ Lumenos 14:51, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

19:01, 31 August 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (5,879 bytes) (→Criticism and rebuttals - belongs on talk page - please don't accuse me of removing criticism because of bias)

Oh no one would think that, don't be silly. Lumenos 18:43, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Nx's example of RationalWiki's consensus

[This was imported from the section where Nx ~~realized he was off-topic~~ was responding to the misconception of RW purging criticism of CP, so I moved it here where it ends on topic, where I am making a case that user reviews can be helpful (if not made by idiots [or liars]).] [Then the section was copied back after Nx finally decided to tell me he didn't think we were working together on this. Lumenos 07:30, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]