Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions

Line 286: Line 286:
: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)
: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)
: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)
::Have you even read the pages I posted above?  Wikipedia has many doubtful articles from a skeptical perspective - that is, they are presenting things we disagree with in a non-critical manner.  ''Yes'', wikipedia has far more content in their science articles, and in many areas there is simply no need for RW to bother writing them.  But ''no'', they don't do what we do ''at all'', let alone "better".  [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 19:00, 20 September 2009 (EDT)


== Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article ==
== Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article ==
146

edits