60
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 10:18, 2 September 2009
, 2 September 2009→Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article: What is LP?
| Line 358: | Line 358: | ||
::::Liberapedia is incredibly badly written (and is getting worse with time). RationalWiki is written better every day (that it is on line). [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 07:25, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::Liberapedia is incredibly badly written (and is getting worse with time). RationalWiki is written better every day (that it is on line). [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 07:25, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::Okay? Are you submitting this for the comparison section if it is created? Are you in favor of turning the "Similar Wikis" section into a "Comparison with other wikis" section, in other words? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:36, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::Okay? Are you submitting this for the comparison section if it is created? Are you in favor of turning the "Similar Wikis" section into a "Comparison with other wikis" section, in other words? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:36, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::Perhaps this should more properly go in the Liberapedia article. While it has been stated that : "Liberapedia is a parody of CP" and "most articles should take stereotypical liberal views and distort them to the extreme" if I look at recent changes I'm not sure that most articles do either of these things. I see various articles on interstellar phenomena which are written in a factual manner; an article on Hell which, while sarcastic, does not seem to fit the description; a factual article on the British NHS. After a bit of looking you come to "Atheist" which perhaps, sort of, fits the description. | |||
::::::Frankly, I think it needs to re-define itself and after it has done that this question should be re-addressed.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:18, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||