1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 21:33, 10 September 2009
, 10 September 2009→RationalWiki vs Wikipedia: RationalWiki has a different inclusion policy, meaning that it focuses on those objectives solely, whereas Wikipedia has a broader scope.
(→RationalWiki vs Wikipedia: [Update: struck out bad argument. Huw attacks this weak point of the debate, next.) |
(→RationalWiki vs Wikipedia: RationalWiki has a different inclusion policy, meaning that it focuses on those objectives solely, whereas Wikipedia has a broader scope.) |
||
| Line 298: | Line 298: | ||
I don't see how this wiki could possibly expect to compete realistically with Wikipedia, in terms of the "official" goals that are listed at the top of this article. It does however have an interesting and active community and Wikipedia does not allow satire. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) [Update: And you can say [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Creation_science dirty words]. :) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)] | I don't see how this wiki could possibly expect to compete realistically with Wikipedia, in terms of the "official" goals that are listed at the top of this article. It does however have an interesting and active community and Wikipedia does not allow satire. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) [Update: And you can say [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Creation_science dirty words]. :) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)] | ||
:It does not try to compete with Wikipedia. To put it simply: WP's policies do not allow it to call bullshit (e.g. creation "science" etc.) bullshit. RW can do that, and can also be funny while doing it. There's also nothing about competing with Wikipedia in the site's official goals. In fact some of us are quite zealous when it comes to off-mission articles (e.g. some pretty well written math articles copied from CP, where they were deleted by Ed Poor because he didn't understand them, were deleted on RW because they were off-mission, and WP would always have a better article about the subject anyway). We know that we stand no chance against WP in its home turf. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:47, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :It does not try to compete with Wikipedia. To put it simply: WP's policies do not allow it to call bullshit (e.g. creation "science" etc.) bullshit. RW can do that, and can also be funny while doing it. There's also nothing about competing with Wikipedia in the site's official goals. In fact some of us are quite zealous when it comes to off-mission articles (e.g. some pretty well written math articles copied from CP, where they were deleted by Ed Poor because he didn't understand them, were deleted on RW because they were off-mission, and WP would always have a better article about the subject anyway). We know that we stand no chance against WP in its home turf. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:47, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::<del>What you can't do at Wikipedia is Conservapedia (or Liberapedia). I think your stated goals should include satire, since that is really what sets you apart.</del> [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT) [ | ::<del>What you can't do at Wikipedia is Conservapedia (or Liberapedia). I think your stated goals should include satire, since that is really what sets you apart.</del> [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT) [Updates: struck out bad argument. Huw attacks this weak point of the debate, next. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:28, 10 September 2009 (EDT) RationalWiki has a different inclusion policy, meaning that it focuses on those objectives solely, whereas Wikipedia has a broader scope. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT)] | ||
:::::Lumenos, you ''really'' don't understand what RW ''is'' do you? As in, embarrassingly so? (Granted it's down right now, but its goals are listed in this article). It's got nothing to do with wikipedia. It's ''not'' an encyclopedia. And why have you made such a mess of this talk page? [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 07:21, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::Lumenos, you ''really'' don't understand what RW ''is'' do you? As in, embarrassingly so? (Granted it's down right now, but its goals are listed in this article). It's got nothing to do with wikipedia. It's ''not'' an encyclopedia. And why have you made such a mess of this talk page? [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 07:21, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::I almost missed your post way up here. Maybe this wasn't clear. I'm ''only'' referring to the following stated goals which I think Wikipedia achieves to a much greater degree than RationalWiki can ever hope to. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but I hope that my critical views will not put me at odds with the community or administration of RW because it seems like a fun place when it doesn't take itself too seriously: | ::::::I almost missed your post way up here. Maybe this wasn't clear. I'm ''only'' referring to the following stated goals which I think Wikipedia achieves to a much greater degree than RationalWiki can ever hope to. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but I hope that my critical views will not put me at odds with the community or administration of RW because it seems like a fun place when it doesn't take itself too seriously: | ||