1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
allowance of critical reviews created
(→Criticism and rebuttals: you missed my point) |
(allowance of critical reviews created) |
||
| Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
===What is Liberapedia about anyway=== | ===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. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | 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. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:[[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#How_sympathetic_or_critical.3F_.28Who_decides.3F.29|Proxima and I would like to assimilate Wikinfo's policy]] wherein the [http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Wikinfo:Sympathetic_point_of_view mainpage is written in a sympathetic format] and a link at the top of the article leads to a page devoted to criticism. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
==Allowance of (critical) reviews== | |||
:'''[I moved two chunks of dialog here as it is more relavently to this topic [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:22, 31 August 2009 (EDT)]''' | |||
[[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#How_sympathetic_or_critical.3F_.28Who_decides.3F.29|Proxima and I would like to assimilate Wikinfo's policy]] wherein the [http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Wikinfo:Sympathetic_point_of_view mainpage is written in a sympathetic format] and a link at the top of the article leads to a page devoted to criticism. [[User:Lumenos|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? [[User:Lumenos|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? [[User:Lumenos|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. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 13:34, 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. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 13:34, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 249: | Line 253: | ||
:::::::Well we could always use talk pages for all these opinions and whatnot. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:46, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::::::Well we could always use talk pages for all these opinions and whatnot. [[User:Lumenos|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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:51, 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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:51, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
'''[This was imported from the section where Nx realized he was off-topic, 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).]''' | |||
:::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. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::How many agree with that plan? [[User:Lumenos|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. [[User:Nx|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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:29, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::::At the very least, Human would have to be on board, right? [[User:Lumenos|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. [[User:Nx|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. [[User:Lumenos|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... [[User:Nx|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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:05, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::::::::What review, and how is it valuable? [[User:Nx|Nx]] 16:18, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::::::::::I'm calling what you are doing here a "review" of RationalWiki. It is probably not what you had in mind as a "review". I'm trying to dispel the myth that reviews are only done by idiots. Please help me dispel this myth. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:22, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Criticism and rebuttals == | == Criticism and rebuttals == | ||