1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 01:21, 19 September 2009
, 19 September 2009→No, Wikipedia cannot, does not, and never will
(→On what features or qualities should we compare any wikis (or these wikis in particular)?: (moving inactive wikis out of categories, etc)) |
|||
| Line 281: | Line 281: | ||
Wikipedia may have smoothly-worded critiques on Behe or Expelled, but will never simply say it as we see it. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 23:04, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | Wikipedia may have smoothly-worded critiques on Behe or Expelled, but will never simply say it as we see it. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 23:04, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:But the first question is, which is more effective; emphatically expressing your opinion, or providing more evidence of it (without your opinion)? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:21, 18 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:The second question is, "Where is the evidence likely to be more effective?" Where ever RationalWiki has third-party published sources, where would they be more effective in reaching those who may be undecided? RationalWiki or Wikipedia? | |||
:I notice that RationalWiki has Wikipedia listed as a source numerous times. This demonstrates that any goal that RationalWiki was trying to achieve, was already being done through the Wikipedia. Secondly, that without Wikipedia, RationalWiki would be less able to meet it's goals. Imagine all the other skeptic/atheist publications that depend on Wikipedia, who may have never heard of RationalWiki. Now imagine all the Creationist publications that do the same thing. For example, I've noticed that [http://www.reasons.org/design/bad-designs the largest old-Earth creationist publication], uses Wikipedia as a source, in one of their newsletters. (You should actually get the original source out of the Wikipedia because anyone can write anything in a wiki.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:21, 18 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:I "agree" that there are good reasons to have a wiki with a narrower focus than Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it will come close to being as effective as Wikipedia, "despite" the fact that Wikipedia could be used also to prove opposite beliefs, if these have sufficient "evidence". In other words, I think that Wikipedia is more likely to ferret out the truth, with less words wasted on preconceptions, bias, and opinion. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:21, 18 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:Could you attempt to answers just one of these questions this time Huw, instead of making yet another section, for the same topic? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:21, 18 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | == Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | ||