174
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 09:09, 10 September 2009
, 10 September 2009→Similar wikis: reinstating moved comments
(→Similar wikis: reinstating moved comments) |
|||
| Line 254: | Line 254: | ||
* Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. | * Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. | ||
[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:52, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:52, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
===Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome)=== | |||
(Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument in favor. Only bullet arguments favoring the inclusion of Liberpedia info. '''''I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds. '''''[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT)) '''''[Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|not anticipating this]] (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | |||
[ | *They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia. (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | ||
:As I said, RationalWiki is now trying to move away from that, mainly due to the fact that the most entertaining part of watching CP was seeing Andy bested in an argument by everyone and then blocking them all, which TK has put an end to. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 13:04, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::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) | |||
::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) | |||
::::So I suppose you are saying that they may be able to post this info to your wiki. Shucks, well I guess we could always use this as evidence of "They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia." I don't know how you expect to argue your way out of a catch 22. Notice it doesn't work the other way around. Like if you prove that you pay no attention to Conservapedia, this doesn't imply Liberapedia would not be of interest to those reading this article. I think this is getting to be a dead horse. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:31, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::I think I completely lost track there. What are we arguing about again? I was trying to clear the misconception that RW seems to be deleting CP related material and that there is significant opposition or not enough support for this. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::::Ok, I think I understand now, you're arguing for including a link to Liberapedia in this article. If that is so, I'm afraid your efforts to to defeat me in this debate have been in vain, because I have no problem with that (though your argument is a bit stretched because Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP). But then again I'm not familiar with Liberapedia's content enough to make a judgement here. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 16:01, 31 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) | |||
*<del>Being that we are discussing merely a link, it doesn't take up very much space or detract from the article.</del> (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | |||
:It wasn't the link that was advertisement; it was her inserting a paragraph promoting LP as an alternative source of CP criticism. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 13:57, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::We could definitely use some help [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#Notablity|establishing a criteria to define "advertisements"]] in this sort of context, if you believe you are qualified to make this judgment alone or establish consensus or at least some "consensus groups", to move forward on this issue. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
*If we add only a link to [[Liberapedia]], this would not take up very much space or detract from the article. (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | |||
===Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should NOT be included (rebuttals welcome)=== | |||
(Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument. Only bullet arguments opposing the inclusion of Liberpedia info. '''I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds.''' [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT))'''''[Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|not anticipating this]] (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | |||
*If LP devotes a lot of time to CP this information should be in the LP article and the CP article. It is not, of itself, an argument for it to be in the RW article.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 05:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:Agreed that it should be in the Liberpedia article and the Conservapedia article, but I don't see how that has any bearing on it being included here. Readers may be interested in RationalWiki for its criticism of religious fundamentalism. They may be interested in Liberapedia for the same reason. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:33, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
===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) | |||
==Allowance of (critical) reviews== | |||
:'''[I moved two chunks of dialog here as it is more relevant 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) | |||
::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) | |||
:::So you are okay then with having a criticism section in the RationalWiki article? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::I never said I wasn't. I'm opposed to PC using this article as her little playground and locking out everyone else. She has Liberapedia for that. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 13:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::...if we require user reviews are referenced? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:51, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::Probably most wikis wouldn't need more than a little criticism section, but look at all that has been posted to talk pages. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:57, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::Having separate pages would allow us to leave one unprotected while the other is protected, if edit warring is only happening on one of them. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:57, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::It wouldn't work in practice, because if the main article is not protected, the link to the criticism article can be removed. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:00, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::::Perhaps not if editors believe that would only mean the main article would be protected, and the link replaced. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:08, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::::I doubt that would happen in practice. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:20, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::(ec) I'm more opposed to the format. I don't think it's a good idea to have a bunch of random people saying "I like this place very much they are teh funney.", with the occasional "They are very mean because they reverted my extremely well written and unbiased additions, see here." [[User:Nx|Nx]] 13:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::They would be required to provide sources for that information, but I don't see that it does much damage otherwise. It is obviously just someone's claimed experience. Now if they have a certain reputation on the other hand... this is why I suggest there be signed posts. Just like that debate up there about linking to Liberapedia. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:08, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::::Like I said, I don't like the format. It's non-encyclopedic, redundant, and generally a mess. But that's just my 2c. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:20, 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 <del>I guess we will try out just having sections for criticism, since Nx seems to prefer this also.</del> [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:51, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
19:01, 31 August 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (5,879 bytes) (→Criticism and rebuttals - belongs on talk page - please don't accuse me of removing criticism because of bias) | |||
:Oh no one would think that, don't be silly. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:43, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
=== Nx's example of RationalWiki's consensus === | |||
'''[This was imported from the section where Nx <s>realized he was off-topic</s> was responding to the misconception of RW purging criticism of CP, 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 [or liars]).]''' '''''[Then the section was copied back after [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|Nx finally decided to tell me he didn't think we were working together on this]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:30, 3 September 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'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) | |||
:::::::::::::It depends on the implementation of the review system. I'd prefer to have my "review" incorporated into the article though (it already is to some extent: "While Conservapedia continues to be a major focus of RationalWiki, they have branched out into many areas of skepticism.") instead of having a mess of multiple, possibly redundant opinions in the article. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::::::::::::Well don't you think it important that your claim of "no one objects" be noted as ''your'' claim? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::::::::::::I do not understand why it even has to be in the article. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:46, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::::::::::::::Dude, are you sitting down, cause I'm gonna blow your mind right now. This ''is'' the article!!!....er wait okay no, perhaps this particular example is not notable as to the itty bitty articles y'all prefer to make, but it was more of a uhhh proof of concept. Maybe later I will find a better example. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:31, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::::::::::::::Okay I just wanna nip this in the butt. Before anybody says, "Oh my Gosh! Lumenos is a prophet! Or ey must have been in on the whole thing! Let me assure you this is uuh as far as '''I''' know, just a coincidence. 08:16, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
===Huw Powel removed four similar wikis from the RationalWiki article=== | ===Huw Powel removed four similar wikis from the RationalWiki article=== | ||