Debate:Inactivity
(→Tone) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{debate|Phantom Hoover}} | ||
| + | |||
"This place should be renamed to "Forum that used to be a rational wiki, but is now just another discussion board". {{User:Phantom Hoover/sig0}} 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)" | "This place should be renamed to "Forum that used to be a rational wiki, but is now just another discussion board". {{User:Phantom Hoover/sig0}} 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)" | ||
Revision as of 04:22, 8 June 2009
"This place should be renamed to "Forum that used to be a rational wiki, but is now just another discussion board". Bastard cubic Phantom! 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)"
I actually sort of agree with you on this one. The only article that's been edited in the last three hours is Portugal, which to my knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with rationalism or our mission. I'm aware I've been criticized for mission creep, but at least my articles did something for the wiki's mission (for example, Felidae did assist in refuting creationism, just like shark does now). Frankly, I'm in support of deleting the damn Saloon Bar, WIGO CP, and Hotel Baltimore. Oh, and we do need to reactivate the projects. The Zoology Project has been turned into a joke, when it could actually be doing something. Sometimes I'm so disillusioned I just want to export a few pages and start my own wiki, where maybe this won't happen.
People who regard this place as a playground are a danger here (ie, Human, Ace McWicked). They've driven away most serious editors such as RA, and now hang out almost exclusively on talk pages. This is wrong. This place is RationalWiki, not RationalForum. It uses wiki software, not forum software. Yet mainspace is increasingly neglected and projects are non-existant. The wiki has become a dumping place for articles that wouldn't be accepted anywhere else. Take List of scientificially double-blind studies which have... That's an awful article. It would make a good section, but as an article it completely sucks. Those people linking to us were most likely not so much laughing with us as at us.
- Here's my take on this. Go fuck yourself. You're an internet griefer and a troll. If you haven't already, I'd bet you're teetering awfully close to having burned every single bit of good will you had here. As someone who reads far more than I post, I am personally sick to death of seeing your tactic played out over and over again, day after day, of directing the conversation where'd you'd like to see it go and insisting that everyone pay attention to you, pat you on the head, fight you, whatever. I'm fucking sick of you.

User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- A troll is someone who posts inflammatory material to cause disruption. That isn't actually me at all.--
16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? Nearly everything you do is to cause disruption, and it usually works. How many times this year have you plunged the wiki into some level of HCM. In truth, you're exactly what I said: a troll and a griefer. And you're a pussy too. You've now several times just crossed out what you wrote after people disagreed with and had strong reactions to your inanity. Please go start your own wiki.

User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? Nearly everything you do is to cause disruption, and it usually works. How many times this year have you plunged the wiki into some level of HCM. In truth, you're exactly what I said: a troll and a griefer. And you're a pussy too. You've now several times just crossed out what you wrote after people disagreed with and had strong reactions to your inanity. Please go start your own wiki.
- Nope, you're wrong, they were laughing with us. Of course we can't just make a bunch of {{crickets}} articles and call it a day, but I don't think writing an article about every species is a good idea. First of all, if I want to know something about fish, I go to wikipedia, and there's no point trying to duplicate the same information here, with a single sentence added that it refutes creationism to make it on mission. Second, who's going to write all those articles? Or are we going to end up like Cp's list of ships? And finally, as a very wise man once said: "Less talk, more fight!" Instead of organizing projects, open Special:Wantedpages or Category:Articles needing expansion, click a random link, and type away (yes, this is kind of hypocritical of someone who has never written anything substantive in mainspace, but I'm aware of my limitations...) -- Nx/talk 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nx, nobody could accuse you of idly wasting time here - productivity isn't all about content. Totnesmartin 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- A troll is someone who posts inflammatory material to cause disruption. That isn't actually me at all.--
Contents |
Ideas of what to do
- Delete the Saloon Bar and move Hotel Baltimore to userspace or delete it. --
16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think deleting the Saloon Bar would be a great idea. Also, I propose we introduce a rule that says at least 47% of your contributions must be to article space. -- Nx/talk 16:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Very funny. --
16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Saloon Bar was created so WiGOCP wouldn't get overwhelmed with chat that wasn't about CP. So if we get rid of that, then the chat's just gonna move back. So I move we delete all WiGO talk pages, just in case. --Kels 16:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Saloon Bar is a good idea just to post stuff that isn't related to WIGO CP. But I don't see the point in Hotel Baltimore. That should go. SJ Debaser 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, deleting the Saloon Bar would be a bad idea. But Hotel Baltimore still should go to userspace or be deleted. — Unsigned, by: Arthropleura / talk / contribs 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree as far as Hotel Baltimore and other Saloon Bar spinoffs go. I never really get into that stuff myself. However, the various WiGOs are one of the big draws to the wiki in the first place, and anything that hobbles those is a Bad Thing in my mind. --Kels 17:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I gave up on that idea. --
17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should delete all talk pages, and especially those that build our sense of community. Keep in mind, you hundred-legged whining idiot, where the 101 article got "borned". That's right, on a random community discussion page... ħuman
04:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I apologise if Hot l Balitmore went a little far (apologise for my part in it) however it was just a reaction to CUR's want to make it his. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should delete all talk pages, and especially those that build our sense of community. Keep in mind, you hundred-legged whining idiot, where the 101 article got "borned". That's right, on a random community discussion page... ħuman
- I gave up on that idea. --
- Actually, I agree as far as Hotel Baltimore and other Saloon Bar spinoffs go. I never really get into that stuff myself. However, the various WiGOs are one of the big draws to the wiki in the first place, and anything that hobbles those is a Bad Thing in my mind. --Kels 17:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, deleting the Saloon Bar would be a bad idea. But Hotel Baltimore still should go to userspace or be deleted. — Unsigned, by: Arthropleura / talk / contribs 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Saloon Bar is a good idea just to post stuff that isn't related to WIGO CP. But I don't see the point in Hotel Baltimore. That should go. SJ Debaser 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Saloon Bar was created so WiGOCP wouldn't get overwhelmed with chat that wasn't about CP. So if we get rid of that, then the chat's just gonna move back. So I move we delete all WiGO talk pages, just in case. --Kels 16:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Very funny. --
Enforcing this
just how would this be enforced? if we delete the saloon bar, the chat will simply relocate to the TWIGO pages, or to somewhere else. the main reason I like RW is its friendliness, there's no other wiki like it AFAIK. You can't just say "no idle chat or else." or else what? Oh and, people are still adding content - there's that 101 evidences thing, and a ton of edits to Common descent, Backward masking, Born again and List of conspiracy theories - all today. Totnesmartin 16:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Or else we ban the unproductive editors and save a lot of bandwidth and disk space. Look how successful that was on CP. -- Nx/talk 16:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- We are NOT doing that here. We are not becoming the things we're fighting against. SJ Debaser 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- They're joking. --
16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not. I think Nx was. I hope so anyway :) Totnesmartin 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- They're joking. --
- We are NOT doing that here. We are not becoming the things we're fighting against. SJ Debaser 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
DO IT
“”Sometimes I'm so disillusioned I just want to export a few pages and start my own wiki, where maybe this won't happen.
|
Then why the fuck don't you? You're always on about how you want things, so go pull a PJR and put your money where your mouth is. Or are you only good at telling people how to run their stuff (in a completely impractical way)? --Kels 16:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I would like that very much, but I don't have enough money to start a website of any substanial value. --
16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- try Wikia - they'll start you off if your idea is good. Totnesmartin 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- He already has RationalWikiWiki. -- Nx/talk 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, there's a thought. Give him a little subspace in the style of RWW to prove he can walk the walk. Of course, he'd have to severely limit his time here, which I'm sure we'd all support. Anyone interested could go give him a hand, whatever they want, anyone who doesn't give a damn could just ignore him. Much easier. I doubt he'll even make it to the lofty heights PJR has reached, so it's not like it's a drain on resources. --Kels 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you might be surprised... --
17:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be surprised if you had the stones to actually do it. --Kels 17:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you might be surprised... --
- Hey, there's a thought. Give him a little subspace in the style of RWW to prove he can walk the walk. Of course, he'd have to severely limit his time here, which I'm sure we'd all support. Anyone interested could go give him a hand, whatever they want, anyone who doesn't give a damn could just ignore him. Much easier. I doubt he'll even make it to the lofty heights PJR has reached, so it's not like it's a drain on resources. --Kels 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- He already has RationalWikiWiki. -- Nx/talk 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- try Wikia - they'll start you off if your idea is good. Totnesmartin 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
As the instigator of this...
I would like to point out that I am not in favour of banning all nonproductive editors, merely that we don't spend all our time on the Saloon Bar, which, while you assert that it directs irrelevant traffic away from WIGO CP, actually makes it worse because it officialises it. Look at 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. Nothing has been added to it since π set it up, despite it being highly relevant to the mission. Oh, wait, I forgot: it's no fun to add to. Bastard cubic Phantom! 16:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look, noone's getting paid to do it. Telling people to stop chatting and do some work won't help. Also, it's just been set up, it's a bit too early to declare it a failed project. -- Nx/talk 16:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Real articles, especially debunking articles are work. Sterile classified ad 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully by the end of the summer my art will be to a point where I can start contributing a bit in that regard. I'm nowhere near confident enough yet, though, and properly debunking takes a great deal more scientific knowledge than I possess. So kibitzing is really the best I can do at the moment. --Kels 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've been systematically writing articles on pseudophysics (EmDrive and Autodynamics). Oh, and there's Steve Milloy, Expanding Earth, and please excuse me for a moment so I can write the next article on my list. --
17:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've been systematically writing articles on pseudophysics (EmDrive and Autodynamics). Oh, and there's Steve Milloy, Expanding Earth, and please excuse me for a moment so I can write the next article on my list. --
- Hopefully by the end of the summer my art will be to a point where I can start contributing a bit in that regard. I'm nowhere near confident enough yet, though, and properly debunking takes a great deal more scientific knowledge than I possess. So kibitzing is really the best I can do at the moment. --Kels 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Real articles, especially debunking articles are work. Sterile classified ad 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
A volunteer project with a social element will never be ideal, and two hours is not that long. Sterile classified ad 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given how much has been added in the last ten minutes, I would have expected more. Bastard cubic Phantom! 17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's because you got their attention. If you hadn't it would have sat like that for a few decades. --
17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does that tell you anything about what are and are not effective ways to influence the mob and how PH is regarded here vs. peoples' perceptions of you?

User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jesus fucking Christ PH and centipede-troll. Do your lives really revolve around trying to get people to edit this wiki in a way you approve of??? Hell, I got blocked/banned from CP for "a silly pattern of edits", which is funny. Are you two seriously suggesting we institute such a rule here? Why don't you two get a room and gently fondle yourselves? ħuman
04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jesus fucking Christ PH and centipede-troll. Do your lives really revolve around trying to get people to edit this wiki in a way you approve of??? Hell, I got blocked/banned from CP for "a silly pattern of edits", which is funny. Are you two seriously suggesting we institute such a rule here? Why don't you two get a room and gently fondle yourselves? ħuman
- Does that tell you anything about what are and are not effective ways to influence the mob and how PH is regarded here vs. peoples' perceptions of you?
- That's because you got their attention. If you hadn't it would have sat like that for a few decades. --
I can't believe the stupidity could flow so thickly here
- FIRST [2] the Saloon Bar is where the 101 article was born. See how this works?
- SECOND what intercom messages? I thought I was subscribed to all the groups, I saw nothing.
- THIRD PH, what is your frickin' problem? People don't edit here the way you want them to? Sometimes they just "hang out" and enjoy each others' company, and tales of their lives and tribulations and successes? What exactly is wrong with that? The mainspace does not have a half-life - it only gets better. If three days went by with only talk page, WIGOs and saloon bar edits, the site doesn't lose anything. Please get a life besides playing wiki-cop. ħuman
04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Tone
I should apologize to Arthur for calling him a pussy and telling him to go fuck himself. That wasn't consistent with our community standards and I regret taking the troll's bait and giving him the satisfaction. I could have communicated exactly the same sentiments without resorting to obscenities. ![]()
User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I'm more of a drama queen. I would like to apogalize for once again screwing up beyond belief. --
17:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look, for goat's sake stop calling CUR a damn troll! Seriously, he's just a teenager with abysmal social skills, and I should think lots of us have been there. Bastard cubic Phantom! 17:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- "For goat's sake"? Are you two sharing a modem now? Yeah, most or all of us have been there, but we also kept our teenage mouths shut when we didn't have anything useful to say. PH, you realize you just yelled at NY for apologizing? Speaking of social skills... ħuman
04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- "For goat's sake"? Are you two sharing a modem now? Yeah, most or all of us have been there, but we also kept our teenage mouths shut when we didn't have anything useful to say. PH, you realize you just yelled at NY for apologizing? Speaking of social skills... ħuman
What is RationalWiki?
There is a couple great articles on meatball wiki, which unfortunately seems to be down, that talk about the concepts of a community oriented project, versus a content oriented project. Wikipedia is the classic example of a content oriented project. Where the goal of the infrastructure and the site is to facilitate the creation of content pages and only content pages. A community oriented project, are things like forums where there is on ultimate goal of creating content to present writ the public but only about conversing with like minded people.
One of the things you have to realize is that we are not, and have never tried to be an encyclopedia, and certainly never wanted to be wikipedia. When this site moved from a private wiki to RationalWiki 2.0 the question was what niche could we fill as a site that didn't just make us "another wiki"? The first was our strong point of view, pro-science, pro-rationalism, and our mission of addressing a subset of topics. The second niche, if you go and read the rationalwiki article, was to provide a place for a community to develop. Substantial changes and additions have been made to the MediaWiki software in order to facilitate and develop the community aspects of our site. We have taken ideas from social bookmarking, forums, and blogs, and found ways to integrate the popular elements of each of these Web 2.0 icons into our wiki. It has worked out well. The community of RationalWiki is our strongest element. Its development was part of the original intent of the site.
Some people may be unhappy with the development of the second part of the site, the actual content portion of articles. This actually goes through spurts of activity and inactivity. The other issue is that there is less and less to really write about, when we first started I could sit down and write an article about anything and anybody I wanted. Now often when I see something I want to write about I come here and find an article all ready present. Sure there is tons more to write about, there always is, but we are more "saturated" with the basic topics than we were 2 years ago. The other issue is you don't kill back one of the more successful aspects of the site in order to try and push people into another aspect. If we want more article creation, changes, developments, then we need to find better ways of facilitating that not by cutting back the site till there is no options but what we "want" to see.
As per the list of double-blind studies article complained about above, I rather like it, though the joke got out of hand at one point when we had 20 such articles. But as the person that saw every page linking to us during that traffic spike, and read all the comments, there was no one "laughing at us" they were either "laughing with us" or "arguing for homeopathy."
The tl;dr version: The community aspect of our wiki was purposefully created, with much effort, don't ruin it because you want to see another aspect of the wiki improve. tmtoulouse 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the community aspect; it's the main reason I come. I'm merely concerned that the mission aspect is being abandoned. I like us discussing rationalism, but things like the Hot l Baltimore were going too far. Bastard cubic Phantom! 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Throwing random stones
"People who regard this place as a playground are a danger here (ie, Human, Ace McWicked). They've driven away most serious editors such as RA, and now hang out almost exclusively on talk pages."
WTF? I mean, really? RA is here, in spades lately, under a pseudonym. You make it sound like I never edited a useful mainspace article, you malignant, self-centered twerp. Care to point out exactly what Ace or I might be doing to be a "danger"? Care to analyze my edit history before spouting off at your juvenile frothing mouth? ħuman
04:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I read that hours ago, and have been wanting to mention it but didnt really know how. I dont think "I am a danger", I may be a little wild - but a danger?. And I think I have written more "on-mission" articles than CUR (not that I think its a competition or anything) and Human, well, he is one of our best and longest standing editors Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)