1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Criticism and rebuttals
| Line 271: | Line 271: | ||
::::::::What evidence of what science? Anyway, the difference is that we are not "neutral" (as defined by Wikipedia anyway). While their Existence of God page lists the various arguments but does not take sides, ours would say that it does not exist. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 16:15, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::::::What evidence of what science? Anyway, the difference is that we are not "neutral" (as defined by Wikipedia anyway). While their Existence of God page lists the various arguments but does not take sides, ours would say that it does not exist. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 16:15, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::::::This is how Wikipedia defined neutrality on that link I posted "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that where multiple perspectives on a topic have been published by reliable sources, all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." I don't image you perceive creationists as having reliable sources, but the question is does RationalWiki use reliable sources? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:44, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::This is how Wikipedia defined neutrality on that link I posted "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that where multiple perspectives on a topic have been published by reliable sources, all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." I don't image you perceive creationists as having reliable sources, but the question is does RationalWiki use reliable sources? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:44, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::::::Perhaps the difference is rather what you consider notable. Where Wikipedia would simply not allow something to be included (due to lack of reliable source), RW would still consider it notable. So Wikipedia has nothing to "refute" in that case because it just deletes it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:54, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::What is the problem with merging the old CP article into Wikipedia? Lack of sources? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::What is the problem with merging the old CP article into Wikipedia? Lack of sources? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::What old CP article? [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:14, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::What old CP article? [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:14, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::Sorry I misread. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:39, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::Sorry I misread. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:39, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||