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 20:16, 2 September 2009
, 2 September 2009→Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?
(→Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article: hm, it seems I was wrong about this) |
|||
| Line 351: | Line 351: | ||
You have no clue what reliable sources means at WP do you? There are plenty of "reliable sources" for creationist and other bat shit crazy ideas. Read what WP defines as a RS. WP presents bat shit crazy ideas in a far too sympathetic light. There is also the problem that WP is saturated that it is difficult to follow articles, and they often slip under the radar, with crazy people and their pet ideas being written by proponents. That doesn't happen on RW because the content creation on the site is easily monitored. Also WP is descriptive, RW can be both descriptive and proscriptive. We encourage original research and synthesis of sources and information. We can extend our analysis of ideas and people and movements in directions that WP can not because it is an encyclopedia. There are many examples of ways that we do things different than WP and for our niche we are doing very well. [[User:76.113.112.137|76.113.112.137]] 14:11, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | You have no clue what reliable sources means at WP do you? There are plenty of "reliable sources" for creationist and other bat shit crazy ideas. Read what WP defines as a RS. WP presents bat shit crazy ideas in a far too sympathetic light. There is also the problem that WP is saturated that it is difficult to follow articles, and they often slip under the radar, with crazy people and their pet ideas being written by proponents. That doesn't happen on RW because the content creation on the site is easily monitored. Also WP is descriptive, RW can be both descriptive and proscriptive. We encourage original research and synthesis of sources and information. We can extend our analysis of ideas and people and movements in directions that WP can not because it is an encyclopedia. There are many examples of ways that we do things different than WP and for our niche we are doing very well. [[User:76.113.112.137|76.113.112.137]] 14:11, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Are you new here? If you read back a little, you will see that I'm only referring to RW's three stated goals that are found at the top of the article. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia is better than RationalWiki. Presently I would probably rather edit RationalWiki, myself. [http://wikisynergy.com/wiki/Talk:Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence/is_abiogenesis_extraordinary#Why_has_abiogenesis_not_been_performed_in_a_laboratory.3F Here is where I'm at now, if you want to debate the merits of certain "scientific" claims]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:"There are plenty of "reliable sources" for creationist and other bat shit crazy ideas" | |||
::[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources Here is the actual policy, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."] Notice the terms, "respectable" and "mainstream". Couldn't you figure a way to argue that a bad source was not either as "respectable" or as "mainstream" as a better source you have? If you have one source that conflicts another, and it is more respectable, for example, more "scientific" couldn't you replace the claim made by the less reliable source and add the claim of the more reliable source? Then your audience would be what, maybe 20 times the size? And wouldn't they be much less likely to already agree with you? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
::You may wonder why I would think that would matter. If you got your eyes open, I will tell you. This increases your odds of actually '''persuading''' someone, which would seem to be the underlying meaning of RW goal #1: "Analyzing and '''refuting''' the anti-science movement.." I suppose you could just do the "refuting" in your own mind, but once you're no longer a believer in "the anti-science movement", ''you're going to have to refute it, in someone else's mind'', in order to achieve the stated objective. Otherwise you are not '''''refuting''' you are only '''affirming'''''. Does that make sense? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
::This is all very speculative, but no one seems to disagree that Wikipedia has a larger and more diverse audience. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | == Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | ||