Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
m (Cut it out!) |
|||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Furthermore, I would guess that the person putting that in, presumably Deborah, feels that RW people are removing factual material from ''Conservapedia''. That is a valid criticism, and vandalism of CP is discussed in the "criticism" section. [[User:William Ackerman|William Ackerman]] 13:42, 25 August 2008 (EDT) | Furthermore, I would guess that the person putting that in, presumably Deborah, feels that RW people are removing factual material from ''Conservapedia''. That is a valid criticism, and vandalism of CP is discussed in the "criticism" section. [[User:William Ackerman|William Ackerman]] 13:42, 25 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
Anyone care to substantiate any of the criticisms in that section? [[User:24.36.227.74|24.36.227.74]] 21:55, 25 August 2008 (EDT) |
Revision as of 01:55, 26 August 2008
What the writers of this article page tell you is the fact that they were tossed out of Conservapedia for the following:
- Fighting and picking fights;
- Trying to force a liberal perspective in various articles;
- Showing outright contempt for the site, conservatism in general, Christianity, and family values;
- The insertion of objectionable content, such as porn images and links to porn sites;
- Lying, by either including deliberately false article content, or lying in their own conduct;
- Vandalism and cyber-terrorist tactics.
As for RationalWiki, despite what it is said on the main page of that site regarding their own intelligence, is nothing more than a joke. 70.156.10.208 07:37, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
- The intelligence of the contributors to various wikis is not what this article is about. Nor the question of whether some wiki is "a joke". William Ackerman 13:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
- Someone is jealous. 24.141.169.227 16:20, 20 November 2007 (EST)
- Okay, taking these in orde:
- "Picking fights" means "trying to insist on historical fact, not the fevered delusions of beady-eyed fanatics. See the Great "Dawkins is a Professor" Debate.
- "Liberal Perspective" = "Not as rabidly Liberal-Hating as Andy Schlafly."
- Outright contempt....well, ya got me there. Conservapedia is downright Stalinist in its adherence to the One True Opinion About Everything, and I have massive contempt for that kind of attitude.
- "Objectionable content" = Anything Liberal, or that treats S-x as anything less that a Cthulhuesque horror that a wrathful God inflicted upon humanity to PUNISH them. And I don't recall seeing any porn links--got versions to back up that wild accusation?
- Also, remember that RWers aren't the ONLY people editing CP for the laughs.
- Anyone who says flat-out that they're a Liberal on CP gets banned. Usually immediately. So lying (especially about that we think of Andy) is the only way to get anything done.
- Vandalism is generally destructive acts not fixable with a single mouse-click, so, no.
- And adding actual, provable facts that happen not to agree with the Schlafly Worldview is only 'vandalism' from within said constricted worldview, but whatever.
- Cyberterrorism? Is that where we blow up trucks over the Internet?
- It's a joke you can believe in, though. Fnord.
- Yes, lil' Debbie got me to register here. Who says nothing good comes of Conservapedia? --Gulik 16:55, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
The "criticism" section
I have taken out the claim
- Many users at RationalWiki will remove factual material, even if backed up by sources ...
First, there was only one cite, not "many users". Second, the article in question was (as so many things on RW are) a "humor" article. People disagree on the construction of humor articles, and so this sort of thing shouldn't be all that surprising. In fact, being a wiki, editorial changes should never be surprising.
The material that was removed was, in fact, an actual article cite to an actual web page, and was therefore "true". However, from looking at what was going on, that material wasn't funny, and wasn't in keeping with the tone of the humor article. The person adding it had legitimate issues with the way various political groups view the Jewish community. Those valid concerns are appropriate for another article. But the reverting person felt that they were turning a humor page into an actual controversy page, which wasn't what the page was supposed to be about.
Before people go looking for other instances of RW people removing "factual material", keep in mind that, on a wiki, people remove stuff, and edit it and move it around, all the time. Including things that are in fact true.
Furthermore, I would guess that the person putting that in, presumably Deborah, feels that RW people are removing factual material from Conservapedia. That is a valid criticism, and vandalism of CP is discussed in the "criticism" section. William Ackerman 13:42, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Anyone care to substantiate any of the criticisms in that section? 24.36.227.74 21:55, 25 August 2008 (EDT)