# RationalWiki talk:Websites

 An editor believes this article contains duplicate material.This article may have a content or subject overlap with RationalWiki:Webpage links and the pages could be merged. You can discuss this here.

What about social networks like http://www.richarddawkins.net/social/ ? User:Ttony21/sig2 21:58, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

It really is just a subpart of richarddawkins.net so if you add the parent address that would be enough. Or alternatively you could start a forums section and put it there. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:00, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Are those science fiction sites really in line with our missions? WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:44, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

At risk of becoming the most hated person on this wiki, science fiction=pseudo-science, it is completely against our mission. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:55, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
Most of us "like" scifi. However, it has, close to what you say, nothing to do with our mission. ħuman 23:57, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
How about the for lulz, especially ED which isn't funny it is just shit. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 18:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
I saw that being deleted, and agree. Pointless. ħuman 18:16, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, so why do we have articles on each of those sites? WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:51, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Bring that up on their talkpages. The ED article isn't particularly flattering, it does look odd that we endorse it here and trash it on its page. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 20:01, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
My understanding was that part of the point of these two articles was to list websites that we have mentioned on RationalWiki, & link to the content about them. The Onion has a lot of content satirising the American religious right, so seems quite on mission, & Uncyclopedia has quite a lot of content about CP etc. Don't really care about ED, I just added it to go with UP, but it's already on webshites so doesn't necessarily have to be here too. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:44, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Okay put it back if it is essential. Maybe we need a clearer preamble on the point of these lists, I always thought of them as a sort meta-further reading list. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 20:46, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
But snark accounts for a lot of what we do. How is it off-mission to link to snarky sites? WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:51, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Yeah true. How were they listed before? Maybe just call them satire or something. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 21:03, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Come to that what is Human's website contributing to our mission? - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 18:09, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Many articles on things like tolerance, thinking rationally about strange things, off the top of my head. I think songs like "Believe" are fairly on-mission. But feel free to delete it (and the section?) if you must. ħuman 18:16, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
I was just wondering if that was a precedent for everyone to put up their on missionish but non-blog website (not that I have one but if others do). - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 19:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, that was what I was thinking. Not many will have them, of course, but I'd expect a few. ħuman 22:26, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

##  Skepticwiki

I don't think it's the same site it once was.--Krejtalk 01:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, they used to redirect here. Peter mqzp 01:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

##  Bigotry wiki

Would bigotry.sashaweb.net, which makes fun of bigotry, qualify?

It could go under sexism since there don't seem to be better categories, but I would think racism would be better. –Inquisitor Sasha 02:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)