1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 02:29, 2 September 2009
, 2 September 2009→Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?
| Line 343: | Line 343: | ||
:There's a point I'd like to make relative to this, and RW's content, that I see no one mentioning above. Sorry I can't link to examples right now, but we don't just write "articles" on "topics". We do things that are completely un-encyclopedic, the best examples of which are our "side by side" pages. We take all of some original source, for instance, Behe's "Q & A" from his Amazon author page, and put it into a series of tables and refute/debunk/argue with them one point at a time. Regarding sources, yes, we try to use good references for our work, but also we use arguments and present opinion and conclusions ("original research") in our pieces. And, to basically answer the question in the header, no. They may have greater resources on many topics we are also interested in, and provide great background, but we go that one step further, as pointed out at the very beginning of this discussion - we feel free to call bullshit bullshit. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 16:07, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | :There's a point I'd like to make relative to this, and RW's content, that I see no one mentioning above. Sorry I can't link to examples right now, but we don't just write "articles" on "topics". We do things that are completely un-encyclopedic, the best examples of which are our "side by side" pages. We take all of some original source, for instance, Behe's "Q & A" from his Amazon author page, and put it into a series of tables and refute/debunk/argue with them one point at a time. Regarding sources, yes, we try to use good references for our work, but also we use arguments and present opinion and conclusions ("original research") in our pieces. And, to basically answer the question in the header, no. They may have greater resources on many topics we are also interested in, and provide great background, but we go that one step further, as pointed out at the very beginning of this discussion - we feel free to call bullshit bullshit. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 16:07, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::One could view this as, not so much a criticism of RationalWiki per se, but a criticism of the stated goals which do not mention any of these fine points you have made. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:24, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ::One could view this as, not so much a criticism of RationalWiki per se, but a criticism of the stated goals which do not mention any of these fine points you have made. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:24, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::And this brings me to the real "wandalously" crafty reason for this "review"/"interview". If RationalWiki were run by consensus (or "mob rule" or some such funny name for it?), than someone such as yourself should be able to edit those goals to reflect something that is really unique about RW. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:29, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | == Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | ||