Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Jazzman831 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:::This is linked to on [[Conservapedia]], so even though not everyone will read it, it's readily available to anyone who wants to look up Conservative encyclopedias. | :::This is linked to on [[Conservapedia]], so even though not everyone will read it, it's readily available to anyone who wants to look up Conservative encyclopedias. | ||
:::What is this wiki about? Is it about directing people towards wikis, or providing (one sided) criticisms of wikis? I checked out a couple popular wikis as a way to compare and see what a "good" wikiindex article would be. [[English Wikipedia]], '''the''' wiki, is described as "The English language Wikipedia, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, neutral point of view, NPOV". [[Uncyclopedia]] has no criticism, [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] has no criticism. [[RationalWiki]] has a "criticism" section, but it's used to criticise Conservapedia. The only criticism section I can find is in [[AboutUs]], but it is stated in plain, non-inflamatory language, and AboutUs was given a chance to refute the criticism section. My "bias" doesn't change these facts, does it? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:48, 15 November 2008 (EST) | :::What is this wiki about? Is it about directing people towards wikis, or providing (one sided) criticisms of wikis? I checked out a couple popular wikis as a way to compare and see what a "good" wikiindex article would be. [[English Wikipedia]], '''the''' wiki, is described as "The English language Wikipedia, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, neutral point of view, NPOV". [[Uncyclopedia]] has no criticism, [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] has no criticism. [[RationalWiki]] has a "criticism" section, but it's used to criticise Conservapedia. The only criticism section I can find is in [[AboutUs]], but it is stated in plain, non-inflamatory language, and AboutUs was given a chance to refute the criticism section. My "bias" doesn't change these facts, does it? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:48, 15 November 2008 (EST) | ||
::::Jazz, if you want to add a section explaining why Andrew Schlafly is like Jesus with a PhD, by all means don't let ME stop you. The simple fact that CP '''lies all the time''' about topics ranging from fossil formation to Barack Obama's religious beliefs is '''kind of important''', and anyone gullible enough to think about using it as a research source on any topic other than the psychopathology of authoritarian organizations probably needs to be warned that Conservapedia is to education what NAMBLA is to the Boy Scouts. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST) | |||
What's this article for? I thought that this was supposed to be an online wiki phonebook, not a place for wikis to criticize each other. This will grow out of control. Someone might try to make a [[Wookieepedia]] vs. [[Star Wars Fanon]] article, an [[Uncyclopedia]] vs. [[Illogicopedia]] article, or even an [[Uncyclopedia]]/ [[Illogicopedia]] vs. [[Wikia]] article. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 00:03, 16 November 2008 (EST) | What's this article for? I thought that this was supposed to be an online wiki phonebook, not a place for wikis to criticize each other. This will grow out of control. Someone might try to make a [[Wookieepedia]] vs. [[Star Wars Fanon]] article, an [[Uncyclopedia]] vs. [[Illogicopedia]] article, or even an [[Uncyclopedia]]/ [[Illogicopedia]] vs. [[Wikia]] article. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 00:03, 16 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Uncyclopedia has plenty of criticism of the blocking policy. Encyclopedia Dramatica is impossible to edit because any attempt to edit triggers a spam filter. Impartial administrators need to decide what this wiki is for. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:32, 16 November 2008 (EST) | Uncyclopedia has plenty of criticism of the blocking policy. Encyclopedia Dramatica is impossible to edit because any attempt to edit triggers a spam filter. Impartial administrators need to decide what this wiki is for. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:32, 16 November 2008 (EST) | ||
:It's hardly a criticism. On a humorwiki you get blocked humorously and without much sense. Ooooooh that's a harsh criticism indeed. And spam filter? If that's the only reason why there's no criticism, then how did the article get there in the first place? Clearly if someone wanted to write a criticism they could get around the spam filter in the same way. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:28, 16 November 2008 (EST) | :It's hardly a criticism. On a humorwiki you get blocked humorously and without much sense. Ooooooh that's a harsh criticism indeed. And spam filter? If that's the only reason why there's no criticism, then how did the article get there in the first place? Clearly if someone wanted to write a criticism they could get around the spam filter in the same way. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:28, 16 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 20:18, 18 November 2008
I've put the deleted materal into a separate article linked to Conservapedia and RationalWiki. I hope that's an acceptable compromise. Proxima Centauri 12:36, 15 November 2008 (EST)
- I don't really see how it's a comprimise... there's still a page about why Conservapedia is bad. How is this different than before? JazzMan 13:37, 15 November 2008 (EST)
- You're a Conservapedian. I'm as RationalWikian. Neither of us is neutral. Not everybody will click onto the link to this page. Therefore it's a compromise. Here administrators don't inforce their decisions as happens at Conservapedia. Neutral admins will decide this. Proxima Centauri 14:38, 15 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm also a sysop on RationalWiki. What's your point?
- This is linked to on Conservapedia, so even though not everyone will read it, it's readily available to anyone who wants to look up Conservative encyclopedias.
- What is this wiki about? Is it about directing people towards wikis, or providing (one sided) criticisms of wikis? I checked out a couple popular wikis as a way to compare and see what a "good" wikiindex article would be. English Wikipedia, the wiki, is described as "The English language Wikipedia, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, neutral point of view, NPOV". Uncyclopedia has no criticism, Encyclopædia Dramatica has no criticism. RationalWiki has a "criticism" section, but it's used to criticise Conservapedia. The only criticism section I can find is in AboutUs, but it is stated in plain, non-inflamatory language, and AboutUs was given a chance to refute the criticism section. My "bias" doesn't change these facts, does it? JazzMan 18:48, 15 November 2008 (EST)
- Jazz, if you want to add a section explaining why Andrew Schlafly is like Jesus with a PhD, by all means don't let ME stop you. The simple fact that CP lies all the time about topics ranging from fossil formation to Barack Obama's religious beliefs is kind of important, and anyone gullible enough to think about using it as a research source on any topic other than the psychopathology of authoritarian organizations probably needs to be warned that Conservapedia is to education what NAMBLA is to the Boy Scouts. --Gulik 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)
- You're a Conservapedian. I'm as RationalWikian. Neither of us is neutral. Not everybody will click onto the link to this page. Therefore it's a compromise. Here administrators don't inforce their decisions as happens at Conservapedia. Neutral admins will decide this. Proxima Centauri 14:38, 15 November 2008 (EST)
What's this article for? I thought that this was supposed to be an online wiki phonebook, not a place for wikis to criticize each other. This will grow out of control. Someone might try to make a Wookieepedia vs. Star Wars Fanon article, an Uncyclopedia vs. Illogicopedia article, or even an Uncyclopedia/ Illogicopedia vs. Wikia article. --Michaeldsuarez 00:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Uncyclopedia has plenty of criticism of the blocking policy. Encyclopedia Dramatica is impossible to edit because any attempt to edit triggers a spam filter. Impartial administrators need to decide what this wiki is for. Proxima Centauri 02:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
- It's hardly a criticism. On a humorwiki you get blocked humorously and without much sense. Ooooooh that's a harsh criticism indeed. And spam filter? If that's the only reason why there's no criticism, then how did the article get there in the first place? Clearly if someone wanted to write a criticism they could get around the spam filter in the same way. JazzMan 14:28, 16 November 2008 (EST)