WikiSynergy
(The page was last edited months ago, and most of it was written years ago. It's now cleaer what it is) |
(Undo revision 703031 by 81.159.200.156 (talk) Give me a minute, and I'll integrate these new editions into the article.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{internet}} | {{internet}} | ||
| − | '''WikiSynergy''' is a project that attempted to be a central clearinghouse for "fringe" or "frontier" topics, such as, but of course not limited to, [[ESP]] and [[alternative medicine]]. Their | + | '''WikiSynergy''' is a project that attempted to be a central clearinghouse for "fringe" or "frontier" topics, such as, but of course not limited to, [[ESP]] and [[alternative medicine]]. Their goal is to create a "clearinghouse" of information on such topics, in a "collegial" atmosphere, focusing especially on controversies with skeptics. |
The site owner made it completely unavailable in early September 2009 due to threats that crossed over into real life. On the 7th it was partially resurrected, with viewing and editing limited to Administrators, with most trusted editors (mostly from RW!) being made Admins at that time. | The site owner made it completely unavailable in early September 2009 due to threats that crossed over into real life. On the 7th it was partially resurrected, with viewing and editing limited to Administrators, with most trusted editors (mostly from RW!) being made Admins at that time. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Aims of the site== | ==Aims of the site== | ||
| − | Contributors are encouraged to add as many articles on [[woo]] as possible, in whatever format they want, to its diverse stockpile. | + | Contributors are encouraged to add as many articles on [[woo]] as possible, in whatever format they want, to its diverse stockpile. |
The wiki self-styles itself as being for a special kind of "skeptics": those with minds open enough to "believe and observe", and brands those who do not explore "frontier" topics of inquiry with equally open minds as "pseudoskeptics." When you link the word "woo" at WikiSynergy, you get redirected to a page called "Why skeptics lose",<ref>http://wikisynergy.com/wiki/Woo</ref> which is a bit incoherent,<ref>The main incoherence is that at some meta-level, they wish to claim the title of "skeptics", but in this essay they appear to use to the term to indicate those they call "pseudoskeptics". You know, the people who don't believe in magic. The people "[who] are nasty about what they believe"</ref> but a fun read.<ref>PS, the article is [http://www.wikisynergy.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Human&diff=next&oldid=4248 intentionally] incoherent. What fun!</ref> | The wiki self-styles itself as being for a special kind of "skeptics": those with minds open enough to "believe and observe", and brands those who do not explore "frontier" topics of inquiry with equally open minds as "pseudoskeptics." When you link the word "woo" at WikiSynergy, you get redirected to a page called "Why skeptics lose",<ref>http://wikisynergy.com/wiki/Woo</ref> which is a bit incoherent,<ref>The main incoherence is that at some meta-level, they wish to claim the title of "skeptics", but in this essay they appear to use to the term to indicate those they call "pseudoskeptics". You know, the people who don't believe in magic. The people "[who] are nasty about what they believe"</ref> but a fun read.<ref>PS, the article is [http://www.wikisynergy.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Human&diff=next&oldid=4248 intentionally] incoherent. What fun!</ref> | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
==WikiSynergy on Wikipedia== | ==WikiSynergy on Wikipedia== | ||
| − | WikiSyngery is extremely critical of [[Wikipedia]]. | + | WikiSyngery is extremely critical of [[Wikipedia]]. In WS' case, it is highly critical of Wikipedia's policy of neutrality (NPOV), pointing out - reasonably correctly - that its policy on a neutral point of view is often abused in practice. WikiSynergy's response to the problem of NPOV is that of GPOV, or ''Global Point of View''. How this differs to NPOV is unclear but it states that the wiki should allow "each point of view [to] express itself fully in its own space". This indicates that GPOV may be just the same as NPOV, but with Wikipedia's strict notability guidelines lifted, thus allowing any [[crank]] or quack to post their view regardless of how fringe it may be. WikiSynergy is far too fledgling to conclude if this idea will lead to an excessive [[balance fallacy]], however. |
| + | |||
| + | ==WikiSynergy on Rationalwiki== | ||
| + | |||
| + | They have a semi-accurate page on us, in which they say:<ref>[http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Rationalwiki WikiSynergy on Rationalwiki] - and by "they", we mean [[user:human]] (yeah, ''that'' guy), if you check the diffs.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{cquote|Rationalwiki tends toward a strongly "non-believing" stance regarding virtually all "frontier" topics of investigation, when they aren't making goat jokes or uploading pictures of their cats.}} | ||
==Off line== | ==Off line== | ||
| − | The site went off-line in the start of September 2009 when it seems that some sort of "real life" intervention - threats - caused the site owner to shut up shop. | + | The site went off-line in the start of September 2009 when it seems that some sort of "real life" intervention - threats - caused the site owner to shut up shop. This seems to have been caused by an angry green goose that got its feathers ruffled after being called out by some of the editors<ref>RationalWikians [[User:Human]] and [[User:Gooniepunk2010]]</ref> for being a bully. This caused the goose to go from a bully to a vandal, and it spent the next three days trolling the site, leaving goose droppings everywhere. On the third day, the [[troll]] threatened to reveal personal information about the site's owner which the owner wanted to remain private. The goose honked it out anyway, and the site's owner (feeling personally threatened) pulled the site offline. |
== A comeback? == | == A comeback? == | ||
| − | It would appear that WikiSynergy, as of September 7, 2009, began allowing administrators only to edit and view the site. | + | It would appear that WikiSynergy, as of September 7, 2009, began allowing administrators only to edit and view the site. This was okay, though, as it is taking a page from RationalWiki and making anyone that isn't a vandal into an administrator. These days, however, it appears that WikiSynergy is accepting editors-at-large again. |
| + | |||
| + | ==How it works == | ||
| + | :''The following has been copied from WikiSynergy under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA-3.0]''<ref>[http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/WikiSynergy:WikiSynergy_in_a_nutshell Wikisynergy - how it works]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | A given topic may have many separate articles. Proponents of frontier topics are welcome and invited to write articles expressing their perspectives (multiple articles are quite possible, written from different proponent perspectives). Likewise, skeptics are invited to write ''separate'' articles expressing their views on the topic. Each "side" will be able to develop their articles without being overwritten or whitewashed by the other. The hope is that the articles, and their challenges, will improve all articles on a given topic. The proponents will address legitimate skeptical arguments, and the skeptics will learn what parts of the proponents' presentation is legitimate. These articles on any given topic should all link to each other at the top. Different viewpoints can also be put in different sections or paragraphs of the same article, as long as editors are in agreement about this format. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As a result, ideally, a "cluster" of articles on any given topic will result - one or many articles from varying proponents' points of view, experience, and research, and one or more articles expressing skeptical points of view. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Collegial discussions and editor-to-editor arguments are encouraged on the talk pages, but should not be expressed in edit wars over each others' article contents. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In due respect of this site's desire to present frontier topics in a comfortable environment, the "simple" title of a topic (i.e., [[EVP]]) will belong to the proponent, and the "rebuttal" (if any) by skeptics (or pseudoskeptics) will be subtitles (i.e., "EVP, a skeptical view"). | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
*[http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Main_Page The main page] | *[http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Main_Page The main page] | ||
| + | *Their most awesome article on [http://wikisynergy.com/w/index.php?title=Rationalwiki Rationalwiki]. No cool new logos to steal, though. | ||
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
Revision as of 23:29, 21 December 2010
| Someone is wrong on |
| Log in: |
WikiSynergy is a project that attempted to be a central clearinghouse for "fringe" or "frontier" topics, such as, but of course not limited to, ESP and alternative medicine. Their goal is to create a "clearinghouse" of information on such topics, in a "collegial" atmosphere, focusing especially on controversies with skeptics.
The site owner made it completely unavailable in early September 2009 due to threats that crossed over into real life. On the 7th it was partially resurrected, with viewing and editing limited to Administrators, with most trusted editors (mostly from RW!) being made Admins at that time.
Contents |
Aims of the site
Contributors are encouraged to add as many articles on woo as possible, in whatever format they want, to its diverse stockpile.
The wiki self-styles itself as being for a special kind of "skeptics": those with minds open enough to "believe and observe", and brands those who do not explore "frontier" topics of inquiry with equally open minds as "pseudoskeptics." When you link the word "woo" at WikiSynergy, you get redirected to a page called "Why skeptics lose",[1] which is a bit incoherent,[2] but a fun read.[3]
Pseudoskepticism
One of WS' longest and most popular original articles is on Pseudoskepticism, a term that is described as "thinking that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief".[4]
WikiSynergy on Wikipedia
WikiSyngery is extremely critical of Wikipedia. In WS' case, it is highly critical of Wikipedia's policy of neutrality (NPOV), pointing out - reasonably correctly - that its policy on a neutral point of view is often abused in practice. WikiSynergy's response to the problem of NPOV is that of GPOV, or Global Point of View. How this differs to NPOV is unclear but it states that the wiki should allow "each point of view [to] express itself fully in its own space". This indicates that GPOV may be just the same as NPOV, but with Wikipedia's strict notability guidelines lifted, thus allowing any crank or quack to post their view regardless of how fringe it may be. WikiSynergy is far too fledgling to conclude if this idea will lead to an excessive balance fallacy, however.
WikiSynergy on Rationalwiki
They have a semi-accurate page on us, in which they say:[5]
“”Rationalwiki tends toward a strongly "non-believing" stance regarding virtually all "frontier" topics of investigation, when they aren't making goat jokes or uploading pictures of their cats.
|
Off line
The site went off-line in the start of September 2009 when it seems that some sort of "real life" intervention - threats - caused the site owner to shut up shop. This seems to have been caused by an angry green goose that got its feathers ruffled after being called out by some of the editors[6] for being a bully. This caused the goose to go from a bully to a vandal, and it spent the next three days trolling the site, leaving goose droppings everywhere. On the third day, the troll threatened to reveal personal information about the site's owner which the owner wanted to remain private. The goose honked it out anyway, and the site's owner (feeling personally threatened) pulled the site offline.
A comeback?
It would appear that WikiSynergy, as of September 7, 2009, began allowing administrators only to edit and view the site. This was okay, though, as it is taking a page from RationalWiki and making anyone that isn't a vandal into an administrator. These days, however, it appears that WikiSynergy is accepting editors-at-large again.
How it works
- The following has been copied from WikiSynergy under CC-BY-SA-3.0[7]
A given topic may have many separate articles. Proponents of frontier topics are welcome and invited to write articles expressing their perspectives (multiple articles are quite possible, written from different proponent perspectives). Likewise, skeptics are invited to write separate articles expressing their views on the topic. Each "side" will be able to develop their articles without being overwritten or whitewashed by the other. The hope is that the articles, and their challenges, will improve all articles on a given topic. The proponents will address legitimate skeptical arguments, and the skeptics will learn what parts of the proponents' presentation is legitimate. These articles on any given topic should all link to each other at the top. Different viewpoints can also be put in different sections or paragraphs of the same article, as long as editors are in agreement about this format.
As a result, ideally, a "cluster" of articles on any given topic will result - one or many articles from varying proponents' points of view, experience, and research, and one or more articles expressing skeptical points of view.
Collegial discussions and editor-to-editor arguments are encouraged on the talk pages, but should not be expressed in edit wars over each others' article contents.
In due respect of this site's desire to present frontier topics in a comfortable environment, the "simple" title of a topic (i.e., EVP) will belong to the proponent, and the "rebuttal" (if any) by skeptics (or pseudoskeptics) will be subtitles (i.e., "EVP, a skeptical view").
External links
- The main page
- Their most awesome article on Rationalwiki. No cool new logos to steal, though.
Footnotes
- ↑ http://wikisynergy.com/wiki/Woo
- ↑ The main incoherence is that at some meta-level, they wish to claim the title of "skeptics", but in this essay they appear to use to the term to indicate those they call "pseudoskeptics". You know, the people who don't believe in magic. The people "[who] are nasty about what they believe"
- ↑ PS, the article is intentionally incoherent. What fun!
- ↑ http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
- ↑ WikiSynergy on Rationalwiki - and by "they", we mean user:human (yeah, that guy), if you check the diffs.
- ↑ RationalWikians User:Human and User:Gooniepunk2010
- ↑ Wikisynergy - how it works
| Welcome to the Wikisphere. Please proceed with caution: | ||
|---|---|---|
| A Storehouse of Knowledge - Anarchopedia - Citizendium - Ameriwiki - Conservapedia - CreationWiki - Encyclopædia Dramatica - EvoWiki - RightpediaMetapedia - New World Encyclopedia - PESWiki - RationalWiki - RationalWikiWiki - RationalWikiWikiWiki - RationalWiki (français) - SourceWatch - TV Tropes - Wiki - Wiki4CAM - wikiFactor - WikiIndex - WikiIslam - WikiLeaks - Wikipedia | ||