RationalWiki talk:What is a RationalWiki article?
This is great. Thanks for the direction. Doggedpersistance 18:39, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
- This should be easier to find. --Warty 07:56, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
- Doggedpersistence: Are you mocking the article there? --
Radioactive Misanthrope 08:23, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
- I don't know about doggedpersistance but I'm not --Warty 08:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
- Yah, I knew you weren't, but I can't tell if Doggedpersistence is being sarcastic above. --
Radioactive Misanthrope 08:37, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
- I agree Completely with Radioactive afikomen's implied Criticism of the RW PoV Expressed above. WE Need more brave Editors of His Calibre who are Prepared to Speak Out.--Tolerance 19:37, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- What you just typed makes no sense whatsoever, even if it were Properly Capitalized. ħuman
19:52, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- I assumed that RA was criticizing the RW PoV. If I have Misunderstood him then I apologise. But if that was not his Intention then What did he Mean?--Tolerance 19:56, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- What you just typed makes no sense whatsoever, even if it were Properly Capitalized. ħuman
- I agree Completely with Radioactive afikomen's implied Criticism of the RW PoV Expressed above. WE Need more brave Editors of His Calibre who are Prepared to Speak Out.--Tolerance 19:37, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- Yah, I knew you weren't, but I can't tell if Doggedpersistence is being sarcastic above. --
- I don't know about doggedpersistance but I'm not --Warty 08:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
- (EC) You have noticed that RA's comment was almost a year ago? & anyhow, I don't read it as criticism. . Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 19:58, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- Perhaps I am too Literal. How do you Read it Toast?--Tolerance 20:02, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- I don't think literal comes into it. I can't see anything but RA asking if Dog was sarcastically mocking the article. . Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 20:09, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- Perhaps I am too Literal. How do you Read it Toast?--Tolerance 20:02, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- (EC) You have noticed that RA's comment was almost a year ago? & anyhow, I don't read it as criticism. . Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 19:58, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Contents |
[edit] Proposal: RationalWiki may include articles in other languages
We need category such as RationalWiki:policies and a description of inclusion policies. Could we make RationalWiki:Inclusion policy? Where else would I put the following proposal?
I propose the inclusion policy allow foreign language articles and make a standard for doing so. I think we should either use a separate namespace (Español:Barack Obama) or do like "Barack Obama (español)". ~ Lumenos 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think RationalWiki should set up separate wikis for foreign language articles, like es.rationalwiki.org for español, the same way Wikipedia does. That way this wiki won't be cluttered with multiple languages which might cause confusion. Having separate wikis for other languages will attract more speakers of that language, particularly ones who do not speak english or anything other then that language. This will ultimately lead to more users, more readers, more total articles, all which help our mission. --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 03:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Multiple namespaces for different languages sounds messy. Multiple languages in the same space is worse. I also doubt the existence of the proposed editors.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- (Bob runs a wiki about teaching English.)
- Is it going to cost more for these new domain names? If so, I guess it is up to a donor to decide if there is a language they want to sponsor. If not, the other option would be a wikifarm (just don't use Wikia or they may not let us delete/lock it, if we want to move it to a rationalwiki domain name).
- I'm doubtful that RationalWiki's official mission is its mission. Without citing reliable or uncontroversial sources, RW can only preach to the choir. There are so many wikis. Maybe there are other language wiki's about related topics (eg secular humanism). I think "the mission" would be better served by directing people to wikis/forums with larger (or more diverse) audiences. Wikipedia comes to mind. ~ Lumenos 05:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Multiple namespaces for different languages sounds messy. Multiple languages in the same space is worse. I also doubt the existence of the proposed editors.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Addition of notability guideline
See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Notability_criteria for the context, discussion and arguments and feel free engage there or here. Nullahnung (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is the proposed additional guideline:
- "While we do want to document all crank ideas, articles should be relevant to more than just a couple of people in the world. This means we don't strive to document every rambling loon encountered in the streets/on a lonely blog. If people appear to be interested in them, though, go ahead!"
I think it should be added right after
- "Articles on subjects which don't really fit into these missions are likely to be challenged and may be deleted, so before you start a new article, think about how it relates to the missions. If you're not sure whether it would be suitable for RationalWiki, just ask: you could start a discussion in the Saloon bar, the forum, or on the talk page of a related article, or make a new suggestion at the To Do List."
in the first section and before the bit about Wikipedia, although any of you are free to suggest a better way of fitting it in.
Some people would like a vote to be held for this addition, so here it goes. Nullahnung (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Add
- I'm proposing it. Nullahnung (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- --"Shut up, Brx." 02:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's loose enough to not be overly restrictive. "Articles should be relevant to more than just a couple of people in the world" pretty much says what needs to be said about it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think that sums up what we want and what we don't want perfectly. All loony ideas but not all loonies, just the interesting ones. It has my full support. Spud (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I give it some slightly Luke-warm support. It's really about as generous as as it can be and it does give a reason for removing something which is truly and unutterably irrelevant. It also gives a reason for keeping something if it is of interest to more than just a couple of people.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't about deletion, it's about pre-writing censorship. As I said below, dumbest idea I have seen in eight years. "Don't write 'this'"? Really? ħuman
02:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, at least I got some sort of reasoning out of you instead of just "you guys are all stupid". Nullahnung (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Human, would you mind elaborating the steps that get you from "articles should be relevant to more than just a couple of people" to "Don't write 'this'"? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The general argument was "don't write articles of interest to only one or two people" Which to me, reads "don't write this" unless you have 47 people on the wiki who want the article. ħuman
06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- The intention was more to be consistent with all the times we've deleted because nobody thought the specific blogger was notable. There's absolutely no reasoning for that in the guidelines, it's just more of an unwritten rule around here. Thus the number of "one or two people" I derived from the article being relevant to the blogger who the article is about and the article writer... while nobody else even cares. But since you've read it that way as to convey pre-censorship, maybe there's something wrong with my proposal because surely other people may read it the same way as you. Nullahnung (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. I didn't construe "should be relevant to more than just a couple of people in the world" as "only if 47 people on the wiki want the article." I personally find accounts of obscure slap-fights tedious, and skip over them without hesitation or remorse. With that said, I like Weaseloid's suggestion below. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- The intention was more to be consistent with all the times we've deleted because nobody thought the specific blogger was notable. There's absolutely no reasoning for that in the guidelines, it's just more of an unwritten rule around here. Thus the number of "one or two people" I derived from the article being relevant to the blogger who the article is about and the article writer... while nobody else even cares. But since you've read it that way as to convey pre-censorship, maybe there's something wrong with my proposal because surely other people may read it the same way as you. Nullahnung (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- The general argument was "don't write articles of interest to only one or two people" Which to me, reads "don't write this" unless you have 47 people on the wiki who want the article. ħuman
- Human, would you mind elaborating the steps that get you from "articles should be relevant to more than just a couple of people" to "Don't write 'this'"? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, at least I got some sort of reasoning out of you instead of just "you guys are all stupid". Nullahnung (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't about deletion, it's about pre-writing censorship. As I said below, dumbest idea I have seen in eight years. "Don't write 'this'"? Really? ħuman
[edit] Don't add
- Dumbest idea I have read in eight years on this place. ħuman
04:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd much prefer users be bold and write an article, and for us to then get into a discussion about its mission-worthiness. It's much easier for me to determine if something is on-mission once it is written then to speculate about what an article about it might look like and whether that constitutes missionality. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- This was not a guideline about missionality, by the way. See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Notability_criteria
- The discussion revolved mostly around how to not discourage users, but at the same time minimize the amount of insignificant bloggers that we have articles on. In case you'd like to join the discussion over there and suggest alternative ideas or say why this whole line of thinking isn't necessary. Nullahnung (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- That bit about "just ask: you could start a discussion" is already part of the page. It appears to have been mentioned here as a milepost, the spot where the new text might go. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Join the discussion where about what, Nully? This appears to be the page about this. Damn non-linear noobs... ħuman
02:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Join the discussion where about what, Nully? This appears to be the page about this. Damn non-linear noobs... ħuman
- That bit about "just ask: you could start a discussion" is already part of the page. It appears to have been mentioned here as a milepost, the spot where the new text might go. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

07:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Scream!! (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Crap can always be deleted but if it's never seen, who knows what will be missed?
- Aboriginal Noise (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Goat
The motion fails. ħuman
02:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion
I don't think we need to add more than a few words. How about this?
"Articles on subjects which don't really fit into these missions — or are too obscure to be of interest to readers — are likely to be challenged and may be deleted, so before you start a new article, think about how it relates to the missions." etc. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe that would eliminate the ways to interpret this into pre-censorship, so that's good. And it still tells people what happens around here with obscure articles. Also, maybe it has less of a problem of discouraging newcomers. I would support this. Nullahnung (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- So, I'm guessing a fresh vote needs to be called for every suggestion. I don't see this suggestion as being particularly intrusive, though. Nullahnung (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)