Talk:RationalWiki
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>
Contents |
[edit] Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
You should add 5. Being as arrogant and condescending as possible to give rational people inflated egos and turn away those who are confused and searching for answers.
"We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue."
How can anyone expect constructive dialogue when so many articles essentially say "If you believe X, you're an idiot"? This wiki deserves better professionalism. Parts look like they were written by snarky teenagers. — Unsigned, by: 71.161.110.239 / talk / contribs
- Parts of it were. Your best option is to start a constructive dialogue about any articles or comments you object to at the relevant talk page, rather than making sweeping generalisations about the site as a whole. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Rationalism vs Empiricism
Another thought for the "why do you call it RATIONAl-wiki" section is that historical Rationalism was seen to oppose Empiricism. Rationalism in it purest form that all truths could be found through axiom and deductions from them. Where as Empiricism favoured sensory observation and induction from them. We actually lean towards Empiricism, although acknowledge Rationalism (ie, thought experiments etc.) - π 06:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a protean word, it's true. What you note is mentioned in Rationalism, and that the word's approximately inverted in meaning - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Part of the censorship of the Internet
http://thepointofasharpinstrument.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/the-censorship-of-the-internet/ When will people finally learn that "wiki" is not short for "Wikipedia"?--ZooGuard (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Where do I (or my lawyer) send a subpoena request?
In case I decide to sue an editor here (who shall go unnamed). The Plaintiff (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear The Plaintiff, the wiki is owned by a corporation that has a registered agent to which all legal process may be directed. Sincerely Yours, Nutty Roux (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Incomplete mission statement
I'd argue the mission statement doesn't cover certain topics, specifically social topics, accurately. I'd argue adding a fifth statement airing the supporting what would generally be perceived as left-wing viewpoints on politics, economics, sociology, etc. Maybe something along the lines of 'analyzing and refuting far-right ideology'.— Unsigned, by: 95.151.135.101 / talk / contribs
- Signing you comments might make a little more credible.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder what he could mean - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)