From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This RationalWiki related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

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 our article on RationalWiki only.
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>


How does one update the RW interface like in Wikipedia for every visitor to experience a better RW? And if so, where can one propose this? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Special:Allmessages gives you every goddamn interface message. Not everyone has the power to edit this (I think it's crats or above) because you can fuck things right up. If you have improvement ideas and can't make the change, I'd suggest floating your proposals in the saloon bar. I'd expect anything obviously sensible would go over fine, the defaults are pretty generic and dull - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


It's kind of a stupid question, but can user essays here get the same level of reputability as one written say in the New York Times? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki#So, do any "real" news outlets cite RationalWiki?[edit]

Feels like unnecessary self-aggrandizement. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 12:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Stay with me now... but I'd like to shorten that list to the major players, and/or sort it differently (per country of origin), and most importantly expand the text on how we're not a fringe page ourselves and that we welcome journalists, etc. Fuzzy, "self-aggrandizement"? We're actually making a difference, you mean! The "about RW" page is a landing page for everyone new at the site, plus journalists and others looking to see how citeable we are in the eyes of others. That whole page needs to be less shit than it's been for too long. We should be able to work out something great and balanced and less of an eye-sore. You know I just want the best for the site and our community. All the best, Skip Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and let me point out that the headline is far from set in stone. Had to type something. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
That's fair. It just feels long as if we're flaunting that "no srsly guys we're srs man". Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
But, dude, bro, we're so serious. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Totally, dudemeisters. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


Have any actual scientists bothered to write anything about Rationalwiki? (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone references Rationalwiki. (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I found this review

Should we add this to the article? (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Why would scientists write about RationalWiki? What research could they possibly be doing that would require it?-- Forerunner (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's at least theoretically possible that this would be an accurate and useful source of information. There are scholarly reviews of WP, mostly dismissing it as garbage. Seems no actual academics even bother to mention this website. They should though, because unsuspecting memebers of the public may place some credibility on the laughable nonsense written here. (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern for gullible web users like myself. I will make sure to visit the website you cited! (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your parade[edit]

Lamestream media likes us. And so does a number of stupid scholars. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what pet theory of this BoN we attacked. I bet it's something racist what with their citing ED. Hey, don't forget to look us up on their "how to troll" section next time. I'm sure we'll all fall for it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The BoN is Mikemikev, his first edit was on racialism (talk) spamming the same nonsense. I'm not sure why he's linking to ED as a source of information when he has his own ED article: Gorgonite (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you not have anything better to do? It seems like your life centers on this one tiny flake of internet drama, and I cannot begin to fathom why it's so important to you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Can this site get rid of the pretense objectivity?[edit]

At least that way it would have some integrity, rather than parading left-wing ideology around as objective truth. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?. Of course, if you think our "left-wing ideology" is bad, you're always free to challenge it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Here's a comment with absolutely no pretense to objectivity whatsoever: you're not just a turkey, but an utter dingus as well, for missing this. Pip-pip cheerio! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Public stats[edit]

According to this (easycounter), has Google PR 5 and its top keyword is "korea wiki"; this website also offers a comparison with conservapedia. There are some reviews here (mywot) (currently 66, overall positive). --Cmonk (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)