RationalWiki's Q4 2016 Fundraiser
We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
Goal: $5000 Donations so far: $2750

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
Help and donate today!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>


[edit] Sexual is political

This article is apparently despised based on the voting. I am curious what the objections are.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

One can argue that postgenderism is the truth of transgenderism. The universal fluidification of sexual identities unavoidably reaches its apogee in the cancellation of sex as such. Recall Marx’s brilliant analysis of how, in the French revolution of 1848, the conservative-republican Party of Order functioned as the coalition of the two branches of royalism (orleanists and legitimists) in the “anonymous kingdom of the Republic.” The only way to be a royalist in general was to be a republican, and, in the same sense, the only way to be sexualized in general is to be asexual.
Huh? This kind of writing grinds my gears. Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 11:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, dat b sum postmodern word salad, by the looks of it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough and I agree that it is a word salad, I just didn't expect it to be so hated.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm genderqueer and I agree with the essay. I use female toilets where possible and male toilets where my workplace has outed me. I'd personally rather have a '+' toilet to use.
Just as how we don't have toilets for coloured people any more, my hope is that one day we shall all prefer to use the '+' toilet and we can get rid of the male and female toilets.
My politics used to be similar to Smerdis's, but I've since become something of a '+' in the political binary too, and modern political systems leave me feeling apathetic and helpless.Vajrapani (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
So essentially this article is hated because of its word choice? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Disliked because of its style redolent of twenty year old bullshit,yes. The conclusion, and closing counsel, the position the screed argued for:
The great mistake in dealing with this opposition is to search for a proper measure between two extremes. What one should do instead is to bring out what both extremes share: the fantasy of a peaceful world where the agonistic tension of sexual difference disappears, either in a clear and stable hierarchic distinction of sexes or in the happy fluidity of a desexualized universe. And it is not difficult to discern in this fantasy of a peaceful world the fantasy of a society without social antagonisms, in short, without class struggle.
OK. Tell me how to start. And explain how 'class struggle' appears out of the blue. Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Because the Homosexual agenda is full of sexual Bolshevism and cultural Marxism, duh. Everything the left says or does is ultimately shilling for class struggle. Didn't you know that? (Only some of this text is humorous hyperbole) another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The world could use a bit more class struggle right now. But if you hope to reach the classes that are struggling, you need to talk in a language they understand. Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 12:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This Reddit[1] has some good summaries of the arguments that Zizek makes.Vajrapani (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. It does indeed help clarify some of the word salad that is Zizek's "style". I downvoted the article not because I am opposed to this or that notion of gender or identity, but because it's the same old deliberately obfuscatory crap that postmodernists always write. Jagulard (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The "black wall street" article.

So this is more a complaint to the author than to the person who posted the headline to the wigo, but "Black Wall Street" was the actual conventional term for the commodities exchange in Durham, NC, during segregation. Richmond, while having a number of black owned banks, was not called "black wall street" with any regularity. Just a note to anyone who read the article and might get confused in the future. Only pointing this out because I'm sitting 2 blocks from the buildings in question right now. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you live near it now, but were you there?? Jagulard (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Was anybody? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course not, and they could never tell you if they were. Jagulard (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
On a more serious note, I have always heard Greenwood, Tulsa referred to as "Black Wall Street".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, all three are listed under that title on the other wiki. Jagulard (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Fake Hitler quotes

This deserves note in our articles on Atheism, Hitler, Nazism and Richard Carrier. For starters. Yay, Uppsala University[wp]! I could go and knock on the door of the professor Dr. Carrier worked with, for the record. :P Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] More detailed captions

What happened to them? I don't want to have to click on the link to know what the article is about. If an article says "aiding and abetting Apartheid", I presume it is a look back at the 1980s and before, maybe on the basis of some newly declassified files. "The two Chomskys" is also rather vague, as is "Money for nothing" or "Britain's secret wars". Please create WIGOs that give a bit more detail and don't revert attempts to provide detail. Thanks. I am not the Ombud's man 20:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a little eye-rolling, that the headline used by the article itself is just so completely uninformative. Like it's not really worth edit warring over, but come on. It's silly to feel the need to clarify that particular point. The article is also about the US, and Obama, and our foreign policy. It's like a trigger-warning for Israel-Palestine politics. You can have one if you really think it matters, but come on. Really? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a general problem of WIGO. It should in my humble opinion give readers enough background (both of the content and the bent of the writer/publisher) to avoid clicking on something only to vomit after the first three lines. Imagine clicking on shiny happy people and getting what you see behind this link. Or clicking on kabuki and getting what you see behind this link. The vast majority of people vote without reading the links (just do the math on the number of votes and the amount of time people have), so they vote based on the caption. At the very least, those captions should not be vague or misleading. In my opinion the ideal WIGO says what happens or what opinion is expressed and links half to support the point half to provide further reading for those interested. I am not the Ombud's man 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I probably would not have put it in all caps and bold, but I agree with the sentiment. I am not the Ombud's man 18:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Sing it, sister! We're in the fight against clickbait together. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Well this was not the argument earlier and doesn't justify labeling links but I will personally try to better explain my links.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about the descriptions. You can rest well assured that every item has been reviewed by own arbiter of objectivity. Jagulard (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Make goat love, not edit war

For the drama I'm trying to prevent with this vote, see here.

Methinks it might be time to vote on the thing we've been edit warring over, with the naming of sources?

  • Pro: It's mildly convenient.
  • Con: The effect can already be achieved by mousing over the link.

All I ask is that we either write out the sorce for all WIGO posts, or for none. Otherwise it'll just be a source of eternal cockfighting. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Yay to typing out the name of all sources

  1. Jagulard (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. That'd be very convenient for the user and Owlman wants just to label sources HE dislikes (and of course not Greenwald's propaganda rag The Intercept or the moonbat rag Alternet).--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 16:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. I stand by the position that I have always held: You are free to add the source and strongly encouraged to make your text as clear and descriptive as possible, but you should not revert sources added by someone else, because... Why would you even do that? It's more work for you with the result of less convenience for the reader. I am not the Ombud's man 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Just look at how ugly WIGO:World is right now. It's not improved. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. I don't think it has become uglier. And even if it did, should this really be our top criterion? I am not the Ombud's man 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. I'm open to discussion on this, but my impression is that naming all (as opposed to naming no) sources will soothe the zealots most effectively. Correct me if I'm wrong.Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Nay to typing out the name of any sources

  1. In the long run it'll lead to elitism & a blacklist.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 01:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Needless bureacracy that will create an echo chamber.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    How will it create an echo chamber? I am not the Ombud's man 20:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Dont see why it is necessary Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 12:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Chances someone is seriously hurt by a source being absent: 0%. Chances that it creates a giant hassle that needlessly complicates the process of submitting to WIGO: 100%. Conclusion: this is a spat about one entry that an editor decided to try to turn into a policy so they can be right. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    What harm is done if an editor adds a source to an entry? Is there a specific reason that should be reverted? Jagulard (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Your counter-argument here seems to present a false dilemma: either a source is mandatory by rules or a source cannot under any circumstances be added. I'm sure you can see that neither of those need be true. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. If you want to know the source before you click, it's there at the bottom of the screen when your mouse is over the link. (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC) (Sophie)
  6. If you feel the irresistible urge to add the name of the source to your entry, you are of course free to do so (I have occasionally done so myself, in fact) but there is absolutely no reason to make it mandatory or to force it upon other editors' entries.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. What Joris said. Nerd271 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    @JorisEnter @Nerd So, does that mean other editors can take yours out constantly? That was the nature of the edit war just now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    No. I think it should be optional. That of course does not mean entries without labels should be taken out. If an editor wants to, they can label an item. But there is no need to require labeling. This is the system that has been in place and I think it is working just fine. I am open to suggestions to the contrary, however. Nerd271 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    It is working just fine, with the minor exception that people are now cooping each other over these exact labels. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  8. So basically there are people who want "Trigger warnings" for news articles? Give me a break. NameThatNobodyTakes () 21:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah if "trigger warnings" means printing the name of the author on the book and putting it in the shelf according to its genre, I guess. I am not the Ombud's man 21:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Apparently there are some who will be "triggered" into annoyance when they see the web design of a site of which's political leanings they disagree with. Let's not pretend that the concept behind it is completely unrelated - why would it be necessary then to inform such people before they accidentally click on such a link? If somebody is so discontent with that scenario then they should install a block filter to their browsers. This is just ridiculous, not to mention the hypocrisy of clicking on a link somebody genuinely thought was interesting from the short write-up and then deciding it's not worth somebody's time just because of the very site which hosts the article. NameThatNobodyTakes () 06:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  9. Nay! PB (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  10. Actually, screw it. Mouse over the link, people. Smartphone users: press and hold the link. It'll show. It'll show. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  11. Not necessary unless they're editorially useful in that particular case (e.g. "TW: Daily Mail" or "why is this source publishing this garbage"). This is not something to exempt from judgement - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Goat love

  • First question I have is what the problem with sourcing all of them is. Lately, the blog stuff has seemed shady as hell. I mean, the Intercept? That's Greenwald's personal masturbation organ, and while they sometimes have stuff of interest, they're mostly to be ignored. Alternet? Consistently shit. American Spectator? Consistently shit. I just want to know whether I should bother before clicking the link. Sources help that immensely. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    AlterNet is an aggregate so they can be hit or miss so I have no problem labelling them. I agree that The Intercept is Greenwald's echo chamber but I don't think that justifies labeling them. Lastly, who link the American Spectator?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yet you've labeled others, and reverted when we've labeled Alternet. All of which begs the question again, what's your criterion for labeling? Jagulard (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Firstly, you were the only one to label AlterNet. Secondly, my criterion, as if it matters, is whether the community views a source as unobjective.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Where did the community decide this? Pease point me to the list of "unobjective" sources. Jagulard (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Boy, your concern trolling is nonstop, isn't it. Clearly, there is no list so it is up to the individual user to decide. If a source catches a lot of flak then it is probably for the best to not use it but there isn't any way to stop it. Regardless, no single user can mark another user's link or remove it for being "unobjective" unless that source is clearly wrong or pure crankey.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    So, they're labeled according to "whether the community views a source as 'unobjective'," but "it is up to the individual user to decide." Just like you decided that LH was wrong to label Al Jazeera and reverted it, but decided that, of all the sources listed, only the American Conservative was so untrustworthy as to deserve a warning? Try all the handwaving and ad hominem you like, but you're operating under a double standard: the only "echo chamber" you're worried about is the one that's not your own. Jagulard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Given that one can determine the source of an entry by floating the mouse over them, I'd say putting in place a requirement for calling out sources to be creating bureaucracy where it's not needed. However, I completely agree with David that contributions should be summarized. Just putting headlines in a big link is lazy; why not add some context, like a link to something relevant on the site, or even some snark? —Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    The link doesn't show up on mobile devices. Jagulard (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    You just have to press and hold the link for it to show you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    No, it does not work that way on the ipad I sometimes use. SmartFeller (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    In other words, make the users sort through it all rather than make it convenient for them. Jagulard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Another important point David (among others) have raised, as I understood it, is that we ought to snark and give context (among other things) in order to reduce the Clickbait-level of certain headlines when given "as-is". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    I think this is strongly supportive of labeling as well. In my opinion, labeling the source of an entry a) allows me to decide whether the article is worth reading according to my own opinion of the source, and b) prevents the WIGOs from being too "clickbait-y": I don't want to give ad revenue, no matter how small, to a site I find objectionable. Jagulard (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd settle for people providing meaningful and informative descriptions/appraisals, rather than stuff I can get from mouseover/glancing. Or people voting on what they consider to be shit. Annquin (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We take the time to include labels for autoplay videos as warnings. Is that really such a tremendous "bureaucratic" hassle? Jagulard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Goodpost.gif I am not the Ombud's man 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Can someone explain to me, in a relatively unbiased manner, what this is really about? CorruptUser (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Editors here have different views on which sources/media outlets are particularly bad and particularly good. Some editors here thought that the particularly good or bad ones deserved to have their name mentioned in parenthesis next to the actual, traditional WIGO summary-and-link. Others disagreed with which deserved to be named and which didn't. Drama and a coop case ensured. The above vote is to set the record straight — either we mandate all WIGO links name the source, or we mandate none do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Jerboa lovings

  • If we label like this, then... well, WE NEED SOME CSS MAGIC UP IN THIS Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    What would really be impressive is not CSS, but some JS magic that would add the label automagically. Jagulard (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    RMF board member here. One of our primary goals for the site is updating the MediaWiki softare, generally — not adding additional custom code or applets to the current Wiki platform. After this hypothetical upgrade is completed, however, the sky may or may not be the limit... But for now, expect nothing that would diverge from the priority of freshening up the Wiki softare generally. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Point of order

To avoid the next fight breaking out, does not requiring all sources to be labeled mean any user can label the sources of a WIGO not created by them without fear of being reverted cooped or desysoped? I am not the Ombud's man 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise proposal

This discussion was moved here from the Saloon bar.

Everybody has the right to add sources to any WIGO (Frankly the concept of "ownership" is a bit weird in non-userspace) and once there (and correct, naturally) they should not be reverted. If a source has an article here, a link is allowed. Nobody is forced to add sources to either their own or anybody else's WIGO. WIGO entries are only ever commented out due to downvotes never due to source or content. Please state your objections clearly, so they can be addressed. I am not the Ombud's man 18:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's obnoxious and pedantic and this whole argument is the most unnecessary debate since we were told to teach the controversy. You've always been allowed to edit WIGO entries, and that hasn't changed, what has changed is a change that adds nothing got reverted. Just... stop acting like this is a free speech issue, for god's sake. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I never said this is a free speech issue. Also "adds nothing" is a doubtful statement, because who writes something is important, especially when we are talking about opinion pieces (most entries in WIGO) I am not the Ombud's man 18:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I wish fewer of my interactions with you ended in exasperated sighs at how far you push small things. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well it is a small issue to allow adding of sources, so I do not understand why some are so virulently opposed to it to the point of edit warring. I am not the Ombud's man 18:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, well, as someone who has, on multiple occasions, given up making a change to a wigo entry when the original editor who placed it reverted it because they felt it didn't help: you were the one edit warring, nitwit. And then you made a stink about it. And then you made a policy proposal about it. And now you're proposing a "compromise" that really is just you getting your way, and I'm having none of it. I didn't revert you here. Not once. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I never said you edit warred, if that is what you understood I apologize. I am not the Ombud's man 19:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so re-reading your statement with that in mind, why were you so virulently in favor of it to the point of edit warring? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I defer to the judgment of the +++Reverend+++ as to whether I was edit warring. I thought adding sources should be uncontroversial, and more editors agreed that removing already added sources was a bit stupid. I am not the Ombud's man 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] "soft" paywalls

There are a couple of websites (The New Yorker and the New York Times among them) that have a paywall that does not automatically block access to some or all articles if you don't shell out, but grants access to a certain limited number of articles per period of time. Now for the most part, those paywalls don't care if you just click on the article and close it five seconds later or whether you read it. Should there be a "warning" for soft paywalls like we do with autoplay videos? I don't care either way (and I certainly won't add it unless someone with mod authority explicitly says that I can or should), but I thought this topic might be worth raising. If not, just archive this. I am not the Ombud's man 16:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC):::

That wouldn't be a big deal but from what I understand, one can just use incognito mode to get around the paywall.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Really? I thought they worked via IP tracking rather than cookies... another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 19:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I could be wrong, I know that it doesn't work with all sites but I haven't had any issues with NYT or WaPo.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools