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

Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)

Revision as of 21:25, 31 August 2009

2,305 bytes removed , 31 August 2009

→‎Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome): removed Nx off-topic stuff because I moved it to an on topic section

Lumenos

1,136

edits

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 ::Well, perhaps someone is ''trying''. :) [[User:Lumenos|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.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:54, 30 August 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 [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]])
-:We do have an extensive Conservapedia namespace. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 13:56, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
-::Is this a rebuttal or misplaced supporting argument? ;-) [[User:Lumenos|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. [[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 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? [[User:Lumenos|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.) [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)