54
edits
Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war (edit)
Revision as of 20:32, 18 November 2008
, 18 November 2008no edit summary
No edit summary |
Jazzman831 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::What is this wiki about? Is it about directing people towards wikis, or providing (one sided) criticisms of wikis? I checked out a couple popular wikis as a way to compare and see what a "good" wikiindex article would be. [[English Wikipedia]], '''the''' wiki, is described as "The English language Wikipedia, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, neutral point of view, NPOV". [[Uncyclopedia]] has no criticism, [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] has no criticism. [[RationalWiki]] has a "criticism" section, but it's used to criticise Conservapedia. The only criticism section I can find is in [[AboutUs]], but it is stated in plain, non-inflamatory language, and AboutUs was given a chance to refute the criticism section. My "bias" doesn't change these facts, does it? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:48, 15 November 2008 (EST) | :::What is this wiki about? Is it about directing people towards wikis, or providing (one sided) criticisms of wikis? I checked out a couple popular wikis as a way to compare and see what a "good" wikiindex article would be. [[English Wikipedia]], '''the''' wiki, is described as "The English language Wikipedia, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, neutral point of view, NPOV". [[Uncyclopedia]] has no criticism, [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] has no criticism. [[RationalWiki]] has a "criticism" section, but it's used to criticise Conservapedia. The only criticism section I can find is in [[AboutUs]], but it is stated in plain, non-inflamatory language, and AboutUs was given a chance to refute the criticism section. My "bias" doesn't change these facts, does it? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:48, 15 November 2008 (EST) | ||
::::Jazz, if you want to add a section explaining why Andrew Schlafly is like Jesus with a PhD, by all means don't let ME stop you. The simple fact that CP '''lies all the time''' about topics ranging from fossil formation to Barack Obama's religious beliefs is '''kind of important''', and anyone gullible enough to think about using it as a research source on any topic other than the psychopathology of authoritarian organizations probably needs to be warned that Conservapedia is to education what NAMBLA is to the Boy Scouts. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST) | ::::Jazz, if you want to add a section explaining why Andrew Schlafly is like Jesus with a PhD, by all means don't let ME stop you. The simple fact that CP '''lies all the time''' about topics ranging from fossil formation to Barack Obama's religious beliefs is '''kind of important''', and anyone gullible enough to think about using it as a research source on any topic other than the psychopathology of authoritarian organizations probably needs to be warned that Conservapedia is to education what NAMBLA is to the Boy Scouts. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST) | ||
:::::Did I say anywhere that I approve of Schlafly? No. Have you given any evidence to show that a criticism fits within the guidelines of this wiki? No. Would I get reverted if I took out the snark, unproven claims and outright falshoods in this article? Probably. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:32, 18 November 2008 (EST) | |||
What's this article for? I thought that this was supposed to be an online wiki phonebook, not a place for wikis to criticize each other. This will grow out of control. Someone might try to make a [[Wookieepedia]] vs. [[Star Wars Fanon]] article, an [[Uncyclopedia]] vs. [[Illogicopedia]] article, or even an [[Uncyclopedia]]/ [[Illogicopedia]] vs. [[Wikia]] article. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 00:03, 16 November 2008 (EST) | What's this article for? I thought that this was supposed to be an online wiki phonebook, not a place for wikis to criticize each other. This will grow out of control. Someone might try to make a [[Wookieepedia]] vs. [[Star Wars Fanon]] article, an [[Uncyclopedia]] vs. [[Illogicopedia]] article, or even an [[Uncyclopedia]]/ [[Illogicopedia]] vs. [[Wikia]] article. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 00:03, 16 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Uncyclopedia has plenty of criticism of the blocking policy. Encyclopedia Dramatica is impossible to edit because any attempt to edit triggers a spam filter. Impartial administrators need to decide what this wiki is for. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:32, 16 November 2008 (EST) | Uncyclopedia has plenty of criticism of the blocking policy. Encyclopedia Dramatica is impossible to edit because any attempt to edit triggers a spam filter. Impartial administrators need to decide what this wiki is for. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:32, 16 November 2008 (EST) | ||
:It's hardly a criticism. On a humorwiki you get blocked humorously and without much sense. Ooooooh that's a harsh criticism indeed. And spam filter? If that's the only reason why there's no criticism, then how did the article get there in the first place? Clearly if someone wanted to write a criticism they could get around the spam filter in the same way. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:28, 16 November 2008 (EST) | :It's hardly a criticism. On a humorwiki you get blocked humorously and without much sense. Ooooooh that's a harsh criticism indeed. And spam filter? If that's the only reason why there's no criticism, then how did the article get there in the first place? Clearly if someone wanted to write a criticism they could get around the spam filter in the same way. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:28, 16 November 2008 (EST) | ||