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 02:24, 2 September 2009
, 2 September 2009→Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?
Huw Powell (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 342: | Line 342: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
:There's a point I'd like to make relative to this, and RW's content, that I see no one mentioning above. Sorry I can't link to examples right now, but we don't just write "articles" on "topics". We do things that are completely un-encyclopedic, the best examples of which are our "side by side" pages. We take all of some original source, for instance, Behe's "Q & A" from his Amazon author page, and put it into a series of tables and refute/debunk/argue with them one point at a time. Regarding sources, yes, we try to use good references for our work, but also we use arguments and present opinion and conclusions ("original research") in our pieces. And, to basically answer the question in the header, no. They may have greater resources on many topics we are also interested in, and provide great background, but we go that one step further, as pointed out at the very beginning of this discussion - we feel free to call bullshit bullshit. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 16:07, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | :There's a point I'd like to make relative to this, and RW's content, that I see no one mentioning above. Sorry I can't link to examples right now, but we don't just write "articles" on "topics". We do things that are completely un-encyclopedic, the best examples of which are our "side by side" pages. We take all of some original source, for instance, Behe's "Q & A" from his Amazon author page, and put it into a series of tables and refute/debunk/argue with them one point at a time. Regarding sources, yes, we try to use good references for our work, but also we use arguments and present opinion and conclusions ("original research") in our pieces. And, to basically answer the question in the header, no. They may have greater resources on many topics we are also interested in, and provide great background, but we go that one step further, as pointed out at the very beginning of this discussion - we feel free to call bullshit bullshit. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 16:07, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::One could view this as, not so much a criticism of RationalWiki per se, but a criticism of the stated goals which do not mention any of these fine points you have made. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:24, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | == Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | ||