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 be 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[edit] Transphobia section contains some outdated information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. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.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)
The irony is, 'harshing my/your/their mellow' is so associated with the 1960s hippie culture that geezers would be the most likely to get it at this point.---- (talk) 00:17, 2 June 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)

[edit] Thusly

"Thusly"? Don't you mean thus you buffoons? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Merriam Webster: Definition of THUSLY: in this manner : thus. OK? Scream!! (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Cute

I like how you guys intentionally leave out the fact that RationalWiki is also copying Wiki, but you didn't fail to mention any of the other websites did you?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 04:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Really, don't.
First, a Wikipedian would insist that you should avoid shortening Wikipedia's name to "Wiki", because a wiki is the generic name for a collaboratively edited website (not necessarily an encyclopedia), and the term predates Wikipedia.
Second, what do you mean by "copying Wiki[pedia]"? Rational Wiki does not copy content from Wikipedia. RW is using the same (free, open-source) wiki software that Wikipedia uses, but it's not an encyclopedia, and it doesn't try to be one - the extent of its scope is much more limited, and its house style is quite different.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Combatting WP

Going sufficiently under the radar to develop 'the weird and the wonderful and the generator of many pages of anguished complaints' articles so they appear on the main page.

What would mirror-image WP look like? (Reference to Adam Smith's 'life being nasty, brutal and short' having been already made). (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia has a section on us!

It says this :
In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, repeatedly attempted to edit Conservapedia's article on breast cancer to include evidence arguing against Conservapedia's claim that abortion was a major cause of the disease. Conservapedia administrators "questioned his credentials and shut off debate".[14] Several editors whose accounts were blocked by Conservapedia administrators, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki, a sometimes satirical and sometimes serious wiki website with articles written from a secular, progressive perspective.[78] RationalWiki's self-stated purpose is to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "anti-science movement", and "crank ideas", as well as to conduct "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" and explore "how these subjects are handled in the media."[79][80]

According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2007, RationalWiki members "monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.".[14]

What do you think of this? — Unsigned, by: TemplarJLS / talk / contribs

And in other news, Queen Anne's dead. If you're talking about the cyber-vandalism bit, well there is apparently a reference for that from a newspaper which says that, even if it's not true (anymore). I guess the best that we can hope for is that a reputable publication prints an article which says that RationalWiki does not encourage its users to engage in cyber-vandalism. Until then, I wouldn't recommend trying to alter that paragraph. Spud (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
As Spud pointed out, this is very old news for most of the regulars. The publication date of the source in question should have been a hint.
Also, please avoid using "us" in this way - RW's community is not a monolith.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia article, again

About the newly added link: RW is not an encyclopedia, and those sources are horrible. Also, there's no "us".--ZooGuard (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Use for references

Just so I'm clear on this: It's OK to use wikipedia for references, right? Greatnecro (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Can and may I create a page based on my research on the administrators' behaviour, with evidence and such, Greatnecro and ZooGuard? — Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs 07:57, 7 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Probably best not. When somebody did that here for Portuguese Wikipedia, it didn't go down well. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
What happened, WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel? Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
Put it like this: "he LANCBd" Scream!! (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Scream!! and WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel, I was already in Wikipedia. It's just that I thought that even with the most rational arguments on why I shouldn't be blocked for a simple spelling mistake or why they should calm down on me the same five administrators would gang up on me and threaten to block me. I still have my log, and unblocked, so maybe we could use that to test out the administrators. Believe me, just sending them an apology message would incite them. I have the evidence I need. Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia statistics

... can be found here [2]: if WP was a nation what world rankings would it have? (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools