1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Criticism and rebuttals: okay think I'm done now
(→Criticism and rebuttals: okay think I'm done now) |
|||
| Line 293: | Line 293: | ||
:::::::::::No, it's not (just) notability, and it's not just the satire (or snark, as we like to call it), though RW contains articles on things that WP would deem non-notable, and snark is an important ingredient in a good RW article. The main point is that while WP does not take sides (in your quote: present all views fairly), RW refutes anti-science, i.e. it takes the side of science. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::::No, it's not (just) notability, and it's not just the satire (or snark, as we like to call it), though RW contains articles on things that WP would deem non-notable, and snark is an important ingredient in a good RW article. The main point is that while WP does not take sides (in your quote: present all views fairly), RW refutes anti-science, i.e. it takes the side of science. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::::::::Noooo, present all ''reliable'' sources fairly. Creationists have no reliable sources, you see? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::::::::::Noooo, present all ''reliable'' sources fairly. Creationists have no reliable sources, you see? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::::::::::[Nx removed Lumenos' criticism as well as the criticism section] 19:01, 31 August 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (5,879 bytes) (→Criticism and rebuttals - belongs on talk page - please don't accuse me of removing criticism because of bias) | |||
::::::::::::::<Lumenos put the Criticism section back and put there a link to this section> Okay, boss. It is your move. I think I am going offline now. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:19, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::::::The Existence of God article has arguments [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God against the existence of God], if you click any one of the arguments for God you will find more refutations along side the arguments for. Tell me this, do you know of any argument that is represented in RationalWiki but not Wikipedia? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::The Existence of God article has arguments [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God against the existence of God], if you click any one of the arguments for God you will find more refutations along side the arguments for. Tell me this, do you know of any argument that is represented in RationalWiki but not Wikipedia? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::::::I can't tell, but I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia does not say that God does not exist. You missed my point [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::::::::I can't tell, but I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia does not say that God does not exist. You missed my point [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 299: | Line 301: | ||
:::::::::::::But shouldn't it really? I mean if it is really based on reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines them)? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:18, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::::::But shouldn't it really? I mean if it is really based on reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines them)? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:18, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
19:01, 31 August 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (5,879 bytes) (→Criticism and rebuttals - belongs on talk page - please don't accuse me of removing criticism because of bias) | ::::::::::::::[Nx removed Lumenos' criticism as well as the criticism section] 19:01, 31 August 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (5,879 bytes) (→Criticism and rebuttals - belongs on talk page - please don't accuse me of removing criticism because of bias) | ||
:<Lumenos put the Criticism section back and put there a link to this section> Okay, boss. It is your move. I think I am going offline now. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:19, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::::::::<Lumenos put the Criticism section back and put there a link to this section> Okay, boss. It is your move. I think I am going offline now. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:19, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
===A very rare example of Lumenos misunderstanding=== | ===A very rare example of Lumenos misunderstanding=== | ||
: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) | ||