1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 10:10, 1 September 2009
, 1 September 2009→A very rare example of Lumenos misunderstanding
| Line 313: | Line 313: | ||
Okay (I'm just going to stop indenting at this point although I am replying to Nx.) Now can we look a little deeper into your claim that, "Wikipedia cannot achieve the stated goals of RW because of its NPOV". I think it possible that Wikipedia's policy of requiring reliable sources (which is the main aspect of NPOV that matters here) is '''more effective''' then someone simply saying "God is bullshit". Can we agree as to that? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 05:52, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | Okay (I'm just going to stop indenting at this point although I am replying to Nx.) Now can we look a little deeper into your claim that, "Wikipedia cannot achieve the stated goals of RW because of its NPOV". I think it possible that Wikipedia's policy of requiring reliable sources (which is the main aspect of NPOV that matters here) is '''more effective''' then someone simply saying "God is bullshit". Can we agree as to that? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 05:52, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
=== | ===An <del>very rare</del> 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) | ||
::What is the problem with merging the old [Conservapedia] article into Wikipedia? Lack of sources? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::What is the problem with merging the old [Conservapedia] 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) | ||
===Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?=== | |||
I'd be interested in a responce to the following question: Nx said, "The main point is that while WP does not take sides (in your quote: present all views fairly)". Lumenos replied, "Noooo, present all ''reliable'' sources fairly. Creationists have no reliable sources, you see?" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:10, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | == Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | ||