Talk:Main Page

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg Do you have a general question about the site?
If it is technical, go to Technical support. If it is about the community or the content of the wiki, go to the Saloon bar.
This talk page is for discussing the contents of the Main Page only.
Warning icon orange.svg Please do not edit the main page on a whim.
If you want to play with things, mock it up in the testing area.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Contents

[edit] Unprofessionnal insults

I really think this wiki would be taken a lot more seriously if most of the pages didn't contain more subjective insults than actual facts. Who thought it was a good idea to openly mock organizations, people and views all the time? I mean, I mostly agree, but I wouldn't call someone I hate an asshole in an official paper, I'd write facts, even probably be biased, but I'd let the reader figure out the man or woman is an asshole from some actual contents. That's not very professional, most of the time I can't even figure out what this person did wrong because it's just insults...— Unsigned, by: 65.93.181.162 / talk / contribs

It's a wiki written by volunteers with wildly varying degrees of knowledge, experience and writing ability, so there's bound to be plenty of shit articles. Have a look here for some of the better stuff, and please feel free to create an account if there's anything you'd like to improve or create.
For the record, I much prefer fact-based mockery to flat-out insults. In a civilised society, ridicule and laughter are usually far more potent weapons against the cranks and the crazies than any amount of anger or bile. Robledo (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
An an anonymous user who sometimes reads RationalWiki articles, this is my main issue I have with this wiki. Listen, I get that if you're scientifically literate it's frustrating to see people spreading scientifically false information, but you shouldn't let that frustration affect the tone of your writing. Many articles here are written in a tone that can sometimes come through as immature and undignified, which makes the reader question the integrity of the writer (and ultimately, the wiki). I hope that some day RationalWiki will have a style guide suggestion that would encourage articles to be more neutral and encyclopedic in tone. --78.10.245.254 (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Are there such things as professionnnal - or even professional - insults? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"Snark" here gets defended so aggressively that its existence is really justified merely by identifying it as snarK with no need for a critical look at what the point of having articles with shitty, hateful, and unfunny tones is. Years ago I tried getting experts in a few relevant fields to take a look at out of date science articles and the general consensus was that here was too much amateur hour poo flinging and the community was too fractious and distracting to bother with. I think this has something to do with why there aren't any obvious experts with relevant educations our work experience here anyone. There used to be, even in the relatively recent past, but the site has become a haven for toxic internet tough guys and SJWs who managed to alienate legit skeptics and left leaning allies. Conscience (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
And yet, 4 sections down there's someone complaining that the site doesn't have any snark any more. It's almost as if you shouldn't pay any mind to the complaints of random people off the internet (edible weaklings or otherwise). Annquin (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. You can read better than that, can't you? Conscience (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Beware

... the summer solstice.

How will RW/RWians celebrate? 86.191.127.68 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] I suggest a change on the purpose section

Howdy,

I do not think that antiscience is a movement, I just had one and I should know! It is an intro page so I hestiate even a minor edit without talk

How about "phenomenon" ?

Purebreadwho? 03:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I second this motion. PBfreespace (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So do we get a sysop involved to actually change it? How? Purebread who? 03:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I will change this, but I need the RW path to the Welcome section of the Main page. Purebread who? 03:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Should one be emotional? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Also, before anyone here gets any wild ideas about altering the main page or the mission statement without having won mob support in an official vote to change it - don't do that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How about "hysteria"? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, though I'm new here, I wonder is RationalWiki skeptical at all about science itself? Or at least, bad science. We all know there's good science and bad science. There are so many ways to have a bad premise, set up a bad experiment, be corrupted by corporate motives, selectively release studies that either promote your agenda or publish sensational or nonreproduceable material (that gets stuck in people's minds), education institution sell outs, work for the Nazis, etc. I think Oscar Wilde said, "Everything in moderation, even moderation." I say, "Be skeptical of everything, even skepticism." ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you go to Category:Science and Category:Pseudoscience, you will see plenty of what you're looking for. WIGO:World and WIGO:Blogs frequently feature stuff about bad scientific practice - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks. I wonder if the term "pseudoscience" is too kind a term and obfuscates when harsher terms might be more appropriate like "faked-science", "corrupted-science", "perverted-science", "sold-out-science", "science-for-sale", or "corporate-science-that-is-ruining-our-minds-and-subverting-our-educational-institutions-and-ability-to-speak-truth-to-power-and-flushing-the-world-down-the-toxic-toilet". But not "mad-science" cause mad doesn't even begin to describe how angry I am. Also, "pseudeoscience" brings to mind blatant fantasy-related stuff (astrology, etc), where-as I want a strong harsh SHAME TERM to label far more dangerous, serious, and threatening professional(?) scientists who are evil, have sold out, or are coerced into publishing and promoting "SELL-OUT-BUNK-SCIENCE". Mini-rant over. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but we don't have a good collective term for "shitty science". I did start pseudojournal and Category:Pseudojournals. Perhaps it's time for some really convincing neologisms ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd vote for that! ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to this wiki?

I used to frequent this site years ago and it seems to have deteriorated. The articles on Christianity and Islam used to be full of snark and mockery which is now gone. What happened? Did some PC idiot whitewash the Islam article and then people felt the same had to be done to the Christianity one? I'm inclined to think so because a large part of the Richard Dawkins article is taken up condemning him for being mean to Muslims. I mean, what the fuck? This is coming from a site that was once a bastion of secularism and rationalism. This and other things I've seen make it seem like parts of rationalwiki have been overtaken by some particularly nutty leftists (of the kind often called social justice warriors, though that term doesn't seem to have much meaning) who think, among other things that reactionary theocratic muslims should be defended because they're an "oppressed group" (so oppressed that in many parts of the world questioning Islam is punishable by death). Cornucopia (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

RW was taken over by SJW beta mangina cucks. This happened in 2008 or so, so you must have been a very early reader. Since you have nearly a decade's experience then, I'm sure you can back up your concerns by presenting some examples of this past excellence from the article histories that particularly struck your fancy - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I can't really be bothered doing much of that, but just compare the introduction of Islam to how it was back in 2011. Much more mockery back then. I already mentioned the Richard Dawkins article: the "islamophobia" section there is cringe-inducing, and on a supposedly secularist wiki. Cornucopia (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
And any such critique is met by such an insinuation such as the one above by David, who apparently puts any critique of the RW in the reactionary ("SJW"), MRA ("beta", "mangina") or alt-right ("cuck") corner. Or they post this stupid template.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 12:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 12:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks like "is actually decently written" and doesn't violate "be funny and not just stupid". Sorry you can't play in poop any more - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Except you're not funny and the SJW articles are hateful and poorly written. Sneering at your ideological enemies isn't funny. In fact, I imagine it's pretty hard to say anything funny through clenched teeth. Na, you guys thrive on negative energy and groupthink, not humor or scholarship. Conscience (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

There's been a war over the regressive left article which the SJWs only pushed ahead in because one editor edit warred constantly against three others and ended up allowing themselves to be vandal binned for the cause. It's crazy out there. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Internal link in the mission statement

Could we make the word "refute" link to Debunk? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Debunk is itself a redirect to skepticism - not entirely sure if that is needed.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's needed! Debunking something is nothing but an act of skepticism; the verb form, in a way. So that redirect is absolutely fine in my view. Further, I will argue that in the context of the mission statement, "refute" is synonymous to "debunk". So, could we bluelink "refute" as "debunk"? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Postmodern Christianity.

You think of this?: http://www.salvomag.com/unpragmatic-thoughts/?page_id=2 Indeed, the link between contemporary religious conservatism and postmodernism is perverse. — Unsigned, by: 201.255.120.239 / talk / contribs

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools