From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon internet.svg

This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could do with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



[edit] First two lines

"...overly verbose and full of liberal bias, porn, gossip, slander, smear, bias, and atheist propaganda.[1] What's even worse, they occasionally use "BCE" instead of "BC", denying the historical achievements of Christianity." This is just an in-joke about Conservapedia, isn't it? Changing back to the boring sunsible version. SophieWilder 15:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good. TyJFBAA 15:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Linkdump

Either me, or David Gerard will need these later:

There will be more, I don't have much time at the moment.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Transphobia section contains some outdated information

The section on homophobia and transphobia mentions the Chelsea Manning incident at length, and it is true the article was moved back to "Bradley Manning" initially. Nevertheless, a quick search reveals that the article is currently titled "Chelsea Manning" with the correct pronouns. As written, the section in this article seems to suggest that the transphobes won, when ultimately, it's obvious they did not win. It may be advisable to add this new information and possibly change some of what is already written to reflect recent developments.

-Procrastinator who can't find time to make a gorram account. (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't title the article Chelsea Manning as many of their article versions, such as the German one, still harrasses her by referring to her using an irrelevant former name and "he". The English version did actually move the article thanks to the hard work of a few decent people, long overdue and when keeping the old title had become indefensible because every mainstream media in the world referred to her as Chelsea and had done so for weeks, but in retaliation, they banned pretty much every visible person who had championed Chelsea (including the editor making the move proposal) while not banning anyone of the persons making transphobic comments. So the non-extremists didn't actually win, as Wikipedia said comments comparing trans people to dogs was ok on Wikipedia, while the decent editors who made sure the article was eventually retitled after months of resistance were harrassed/banned for calling out such commentary, and indeed in retaliation for their work to retitle the article. The end result set a horrible and essentially far-right extremist precedent in regard to Wikipedia's way of dealing with transgender topics in the future. Most of the vocal far-right editors who opposed treating Chelsea with basic dignity are still active making a nuisance of themselves. Robert Wells (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Their Arbitrators already reached the conclusion that socially and biologically associated genders are distinct, and so someone with a (biologically) masculine body who identifies themselves as female is to be referred to by female pronouns. Pro-trans users such as "Bob K31416" have spent a significant portion of time commenting on the issue ("Bob" went as far as getting involved with Jimbo and the Manual of Style since August, forcing me to actually click "older 500" to see it all). Bob K31416 hasn't been blocked and still edits (though removing the Wikipedia donor badge might be an indication of ill satisfaction). The IP, "", on the other hand, also made a few comments over the past weeks, but his edits only went as far as calling out differing perceptions of gender as "fantasy". That IP was blocked for crossing the line, as well as two cases of baboon-related vandalism, but "Bob" and some other users were warned not to start and continue pronoun-based discussions again and just refer people to the ArbCom conclusion. I haven't seen that many transphobic comments just yet, but the second move discussion log's Opposition mostly consists of "X was known as Y when all notable things happened". That argument is legitimate and not-transphobic (though transphobic people such as that IP did use it, also), though it won't work on Wikipedia if there's an article about a novelist who changed their pen-name several books in.-- (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Lightbulbs

Came across [1] while looking up something else - is there a RW version? (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

... is going soft.

Nothing on the main page has caused a fuss/consider the children/annoyed a lot of people in months (the smallpox pic was the last one to cause a stir). (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly because people have got desensitised to it and no one cares any more. I would say that is a goal well-achieved. Scarlet A.pngtheist 01:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] harshing their mellow

We state under Skepticism on wikipedia "A group of alternative medicine practitioners created a petition asking him to "create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing" as these tawdry requirements for "facts" and "evidence" were harshing their mellow."

I'm not sure this makes sense. I've looked up "harshing their mellow" on the intertubes and I still don't understand it. I would correct it but as I don't understand it I'm reluctant to try.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Try urban dictionary. It's a pretty well-known idiom, mostly associated with stoners & hippies. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I did go there but I still had problems. I think the structure of the sentence may have confused me as well. But if everyone but me understands it then that's fine.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
If a joke needs to be explained, it doesn't work. Like Bob, I went a bit wtf when I saw it. I'd say "harshing their buzz," but, geezer that I am, I accept that I may no longer be hip to the contemporary jive. Casting about for alternative wording without joy... best I can come up with is "precipitating a golden shower upon their bliss" which sort of rhymes, but seems labored. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't heard of it either, and I'm hardly a geezer. It certainly isn't known among my circle of friends (quite a few of them are stoners and hippies), or in my area in general. - Grant (Talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I almost never set foot in English-speaking planets countries these days so I had to look up "stoners" as well. Does that make me a bad person?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Never come across it (the "harshing" thing, that is) Scream!! (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I have reworded it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools