1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 10:28, 3 September 2009
, 3 September 2009→Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article
| Line 367: | Line 367: | ||
::::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. | ::::::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.[--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:18, 2 September 2009 (EDT)] '''''[Note that this post was split at this point by Lumenos, to avoid quoting the massive thing. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:28, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | ||
:::::::Yeah so then I move it there for you and you whisper to the authorities that I'm traumatizing the talk pages. I aaaaint [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|falling for that one again, buddy]]. Maybe what I should do is go create a section there, on an unrelated topic so everyone will want to post this information there. Then I'll use the super-safe strikeout to strike out the section/topic name so it will no longer be false at least. It is just impossible to create a debate map with you people. But that's how you like it isn't it? :P Uumm that having been said, I don't mean you Bob, you might be all for debate maps, who knows? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:24, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::::Yeah so then I move it there for you and you whisper to the authorities that I'm traumatizing the talk pages. I aaaaint [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|falling for that one again, buddy]]. Maybe what I should do is go create a section there, on an unrelated topic so everyone will want to post this information there. Then I'll use the super-safe strikeout to strike out the section/topic name so it will no longer be false at least. It is just impossible to create a debate map with you people. But that's how you like it isn't it? :P Uumm that having been said, I don't mean you Bob, you might be all for debate maps, who knows? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:24, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::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) | ::::::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) '''''[Note, the timestamp on Bob's post is the same as the one above. I don't plan to split posts up like this any longer, as three editors here and elsewhere have expressed their discontent. I do however plan to quote the parts to which I am replying although this will use much more space and other editors may be dissatisfied with that approach also. I'm at a loss to see how we can respond to individual points without either rewriting a paraphrase (which is a great deal of work), quoting, or splitting posts as I used to do. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:28, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | ||
:::::::What question? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:30, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::::What question? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:30, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::::My original question in the <s>'''original section''' from where you moved this whole thing</s> in the section titled "What is Liberapedia about anyway". Perhaps all this rearranging has left you a bit confused? [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:12, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::::::My original question in the <s>'''original section''' from where you moved this whole thing</s> in the section titled "What is Liberapedia about anyway". Perhaps all this rearranging has left you a bit confused? [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:12, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ||