Talk:I Fucking Love Science
Contents |
[edit] Kickoff
Right, let's get this started! Space Turbo (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Delete?
I don't agree with the deletion. IFLS explores science topics and could use a rational treatment.NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 02:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- SIf all it takes for an article to be missional/needed is "it is about something we care about" then we need an article on every minor tumblr with one follower.--Miekal 02:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree. IFLS isn't minor in any sense of the word - it is a massive project with millions of followers. Additionally, they do post crap and glurge as opposed to actually promoting science; in a sense, they are promoting a peculiar fondness for science but not actual science. I can't think of anything more mission related for RW than that! Space Turbo (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd want the IFLS page to be more than just a stub page, like it is now. There's no treatment of the on-mission concerns about IFLS on the page as-is. Remember the admonition on the RW To Do list: "If you find yourself creating a stub-level article just to remove a link from the list, consider whether you should be doing it at all." --Tracer (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- One argument for deleting the article was that it was a stub. I've expanded it enough to feel comfortable with removing the stub status. Cheers. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 22:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Much thanks. I just saw that the To-Do and got the ball rolling; I do not know enough about IFLS to fill in the gaps but I do know that it certainly isn't a "minor tumblr." Space Turbo (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd recommend, in the future, that if you are going to go off the list and end up just making a stub, that you should leave the article to someone else who can at least get it going enough for it not to be a stub. The Wiki is littered with them and we don't need more. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 23:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Shall we keep the "An editor wants to delete this article" notification at the top, for the time being? --Tracer (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I assume so, the original editor's argument was unrelated to its stub status. I say let the RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion resolve, although with the person arguing that it was a stub being removed/invalid, it would be tied for keep status. NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 23:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Shall we keep the "An editor wants to delete this article" notification at the top, for the time being? --Tracer (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd recommend, in the future, that if you are going to go off the list and end up just making a stub, that you should leave the article to someone else who can at least get it going enough for it not to be a stub. The Wiki is littered with them and we don't need more. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 23:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Much thanks. I just saw that the To-Do and got the ball rolling; I do not know enough about IFLS to fill in the gaps but I do know that it certainly isn't a "minor tumblr." Space Turbo (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Rumors of purging
There's a rumor I've heard that the IFLS facebook page used to have a whole bunch of page admins, some of whom were contributing content. Then Elise Andrew came back after a bit of a hiatus and, overjoyed at how popular the page had become, kicked out all the other admins. It was then that the quality of the entries started to suffer and the clickbaitish posts started appearing.
Is there any truth to this rumor, or is it just one of the vicious rumors that got started when people discovered "ZOMG it's run by a female!!"? --Tracer (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've heard that too, but I haven't found any legit documentation/citeable source to back up the claim. As far as it stands now its hearsay, in my opinion. --NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 18:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism
|: https://twitter.com/AstroKatie/status/583842331318554624 --ZooGuard (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Damn. Wonder why they didn't link back? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- To quote this Twitter user, "IFLS has attribution allergy". They probably just harvest "memes", assume that the authors are impossible to track, and skip the effort of tracking them down.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)