Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Saloon bar"
m (→Foundation and Rationalwiki: sorry typo) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 322: | Line 322: | ||
:::::"Underestimate" the power of ownership if you want to vote with your feet instead of with your vote. Mock attempts to allow you to have a say in this thing (especially mainspace) which many of you put a lot of "work" into. When you are all grumpy that they aren't doing it right, maybe I'll be there to remind you what you said when I suggested we could at least ask for some legal protection or make donations on our own terms. ~ [[user:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | :::::"Underestimate" the power of ownership if you want to vote with your feet instead of with your vote. Mock attempts to allow you to have a say in this thing (especially mainspace) which many of you put a lot of "work" into. When you are all grumpy that they aren't doing it right, maybe I'll be there to remind you what you said when I suggested we could at least ask for some legal protection or make donations on our own terms. ~ [[user:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
::::::I like the way your are getting in an "I told you so" comment before before anything has actually happened which might bear out your somewhat oracular warnings. But we have been warned!--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Spring is sprung!</sup>]] 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | ::::::I like the way your are getting in an "I told you so" comment before before anything has actually happened which might bear out your somewhat oracular warnings. But we have been warned!--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Spring is sprung!</sup>]] 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | ::::::::I'm going way out on a limb here and betting that someone from this conversation will complain about how RationalWiki is run, someday. ~ [[user:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::::Not doing ''what'' right? Paying the bills? Reporting the financials? {{User:Human/sig|}} 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | :::::::Not doing ''what'' right? Paying the bills? Reporting the financials? {{User:Human/sig|}} 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | ::::::::Naming the bureaucrats or settling their disputes. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=RationalWiki%3ASaloon_bar&diff=621198&oldid=621196 The Foundation will ''own'' rationalwiki.org/.com./.net], not to mention that RationalWikiWiki is on the same server. Will RationalWiki live forever? How do you image it will die? What will happen first, everyone looses interest in RationalWiki or it becomes "corrupt"? | ||
+ | ::::::::When Trent becomes busy with real life, dies or whatever, that leaves 5 Trustees. Meetings only require a quorum of a majority (that's 3). Decisions require majority vote (that could be 2 Trustees). Human is already on the temporary board, I'm guessing he is a likely candidate for the permanent board. Trust in him ye RatWikians; nothing to see here. ~ [[user:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
== We don't live in interesting times. == | == We don't live in interesting times. == |
Revision as of 16:29, 21 July 2010
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To do list |
---|
Bartop revamp (sticky)
There's talk of clearing up some of the clutter at the top of this page. See discussion here. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 10:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
RSS extension
Moved to RationalWiki:Technical support
What atheists Kant refute
- Moved to Forum:What atheists Kant refute d hominem 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Faster than light?
I have found a solution to distant starlight which allows light to reach earth virtually instantaneously. Hat tip Numpty at AIG promises peer review. (Lovely quote: "A full-time research scientist might spend half a year or more working on a particular project, in order to write one technical paper about it." Tell Prof. Lenski that: how many years did he take? An obvious slowpoke!) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- FFS Lisle, how did it all go wrong? d hominem 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- at least he promises per review. Oh wait .. he then says "When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism,...." hmm, so its a special kind of peer review :) Hamster (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- "When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism,...." hmm, so its a special kind of peer review So? What's your point? Are you saying evolution papers are not peer reviewed by other evolutionists? AceX-102 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly they are.. So, I'm now going to get a peer-reviewed paper published proving the sky is in fact orange. And not just during a sunset. I will have it reviewed by scientists who already know the sky is purple, as soon as enough of them can be found. Quaru (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- "If it passes peer-review, we will publish the paper in the Answers Research Journal." Gee, what are the odds? Do they reject anything they themselves produce? Šţěŗĭļė poodle 23:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ace , of course its fair becuase peer refers to your equals. But are they actual creationists ? ya know , the good ones that PJR likes. Heres the publication requirements if anybody wants to submit something HERE its a pdf file. And dont miss that great article on Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin. You wont see that in National Geographic :) Hamster (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- of course its fair becuase peer refers to your equals Creationists are not treated equally in the field
- The rest of your post is assertion and handwaving. AceX-102 23:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why is the starlight problem a problem if God is omnipotent? He's the God of smiting and flooding! Sterile poodle 02:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but goddidit don't move no product. Christians already have a book telling them that. When you're a creationist, you need to sell people books on what god didn't do but was ultimately responsible for. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think we could get published in the ARJ? At least Trent and I are publishing scientists (I can't remember who else is) so could lend some sort of weight behind it, and we have plenty of people who know the territory well enough to make up some convincing bullshit. I mean, they're desperate for content so I imagine we can slip something under their parodist radar... d hominem 07:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- It could likely be done, but I wouldn't put Trent's name on it. Google seems pretty clear about his views. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 13:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Writing a bullshit paper for ARJ could be quite fun, but one problem is whether or not you're comfortable with formally having your name attached to it. Speaking as an early-career researcher, I'm not sure I'd want people stumbling across ARJ when they're searching for my serious research. What if <insert-suitably-senior-academic-title-here> at <university-of-your-choice> finds it when you're applying for your next job? alt (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- So it has to go under the names of some us decrepit old farts who have nothing to lose? ħuman 01:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Writing a bullshit paper for ARJ could be quite fun, but one problem is whether or not you're comfortable with formally having your name attached to it. Speaking as an early-career researcher, I'm not sure I'd want people stumbling across ARJ when they're searching for my serious research. What if <insert-suitably-senior-academic-title-here> at <university-of-your-choice> finds it when you're applying for your next job? alt (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- It could likely be done, but I wouldn't put Trent's name on it. Google seems pretty clear about his views. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 13:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think we could get published in the ARJ? At least Trent and I are publishing scientists (I can't remember who else is) so could lend some sort of weight behind it, and we have plenty of people who know the territory well enough to make up some convincing bullshit. I mean, they're desperate for content so I imagine we can slip something under their parodist radar... d hominem 07:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but goddidit don't move no product. Christians already have a book telling them that. When you're a creationist, you need to sell people books on what god didn't do but was ultimately responsible for. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why is the starlight problem a problem if God is omnipotent? He's the God of smiting and flooding! Sterile poodle 02:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- "If it passes peer-review, we will publish the paper in the Answers Research Journal." Gee, what are the odds? Do they reject anything they themselves produce? Šţěŗĭļė poodle 23:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly they are.. So, I'm now going to get a peer-reviewed paper published proving the sky is in fact orange. And not just during a sunset. I will have it reviewed by scientists who already know the sky is purple, as soon as enough of them can be found. Quaru (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- "When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism,...." hmm, so its a special kind of peer review So? What's your point? Are you saying evolution papers are not peer reviewed by other evolutionists? AceX-102 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- at least he promises per review. Oh wait .. he then says "When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism,...." hmm, so its a special kind of peer review :) Hamster (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess all this explains how I just witnessed Tom Paris going faster than warp 10 and being at every part of the universe all at once. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If your kid turns out gay...
Two friends of mine has established the procedure should they find out one of their kids is gay (they don't have any and I don't think she's pregnant...). He is going to pull out a £10 note, hand it to his wife and say "well, thanks for letting your mum win that one". Mine would be to say "that's nice dear", thus denying them the shouting, screaming, persecution and disowning they were expecting and secretly wanting (what's the point in "coming out" if it's not a bad thing?!!?). A third suggestion from someone else involves going into a fit of rage for an hour before saying "oh, gay? I thought you said Green, gays are fine but I'm having no Green Voters in THIS house!" I mean, what's the point in kids if you can't piss them off in the exact same way your parents pissed you off? Got to continue the cycle of mental abuse somehow. d hominem 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- But have you accounted for the bisexual contingency? Sen (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- In that case Mum and Dad have to hand each other a fiver simultaneously - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- *nudge*, *nudge*, *wink*, *wink*.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 13:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I shall print out the chart in this comic, and follow the procedure established therein. X Stickman (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- *nudge*, *nudge*, *wink*, *wink*.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 13:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- In that case Mum and Dad have to hand each other a fiver simultaneously - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Who's a good broadband provider?
...in the UK? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Zen or Andrews & Arnold. Run by geeks, fiercely freedom-loving. I use Zen and pay about £5/mo over the going rate for superlative service; if I wasn't with them I'd use A&A - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Talk Talk, of course... but seriously, there are decent deals. If you want to go more mainstream, O2 do a pretty good service that I've had no problems with, and it's half price if you have an O2 phone so I get mine for about £7 a month. d hominem 13:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've got O2 too on the same terms. I also have 3 on a dongle but that's limited - forget how many gigs & twice as much (£15) as the O2 too, it's also slow. 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Talk Talk/Carphone Whorehouse have been getting a good rep lately for standing up to the DE Act. O2/Be use the IWF Cleanfeed, Zen/A&A flatly refuse to. I love Zen for customer service such as, when I moved house and needed my broadband to do the weekend's on-call not on dialup, implying to BT that if I didn't get hooked up immediately THE WHOLE BBC MIGHT GO OFF AIR! And I was hooked up in short order. That's what I call customer service ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- THE WHOLE BBC MIGHT GO OFF AIR - maybe, would anybody have known the difference if they did? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, because then you'd be stuck with ITV, and a cursory glance at the content of ITV player makes you think we'd be in the shit if it wasn't for the BBC (pbuh). d hominem 14:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I use PlusNet, who are very god and I haven't had any problems with. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice typo. ħuman 23:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bugger. Must stop this drunken wiki editing. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice typo. ħuman 23:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I use PlusNet, who are very god and I haven't had any problems with. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, because then you'd be stuck with ITV, and a cursory glance at the content of ITV player makes you think we'd be in the shit if it wasn't for the BBC (pbuh). d hominem 14:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- THE WHOLE BBC MIGHT GO OFF AIR - maybe, would anybody have known the difference if they did? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Talk Talk, of course... but seriously, there are decent deals. If you want to go more mainstream, O2 do a pretty good service that I've had no problems with, and it's half price if you have an O2 phone so I get mine for about £7 a month. d hominem 13:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I dunno, "who is/are very god and I haven't had any problems with." seems meme-worthy to me... ħuman 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
cover story abstracts
I wasn't very involved in creating these, and I forgot where it was being discussed. Anyway, I got up today to find a copy of the main page on my laptop, who knows why. The cover story abstract on it was poorly written and had an embarrassing typo/misspelling. So I went to the article and pretty much copied its lead into the abstract. I thought that was how they were made, since any "gold" level article should have a pretty high quality lead, one would think. So, anyway, anyone want to work with me on going through these to make sure the low-quality one I found was just a fluke? Or at least remind me where the "workplace" is for these? Kthxbai. ħuman 16:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think they're mostly fine. Obviously you're free to check them over, I tend to buzz through them every time I see one on the main page (it's the inconsistent images that are what strike me usually). d hominem 16:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- They're all visible in Main_Page/Testing_area if people haven't seen that page. d hominem 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I went through them too a coupla months ago, rewriting a lot of the abstracts, and sometimes copied the abstract to become the article lead. Consider both directions or a merger. Whatever works - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks folks, I appreciate the link and comments. I was just knocked a little off-base when I saw the one I fixed. ħuman 00:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm up to "B" and finding a lot of embarrassing... sorry guys, some of these really suck. ħuman 04:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, well you hate everything on this wiki so I'm not surprised. d hominem 11:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is not true, he just hates everything new. When it becomes old and people want to fix/improve/changes it, then he like it and defends it against the change. - π 12:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just finding a few too many grammatical/spelling/typo errors for my liking. One wasn't even an accurate description of the topic. I realize it was important to get them all done so the new system could be implemented, but I suspect there was some rushwork going on. Oh well, it's a wiki, anyone can fix... ħuman 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well that's the point, it's a wiki and you can correct it. You don't have to belittle people for their honest mistakes in the process. d hominem 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is the main page we are talking about. The expectation of quality editing - and careful proofreading - is higher. By the way, I edited the Testing area so each summary is preceded by a direct link to it. Hmmm, come to think of it, it could use a TOC as well... ħuman 02:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well that's the point, it's a wiki and you can correct it. You don't have to belittle people for their honest mistakes in the process. d hominem 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just finding a few too many grammatical/spelling/typo errors for my liking. One wasn't even an accurate description of the topic. I realize it was important to get them all done so the new system could be implemented, but I suspect there was some rushwork going on. Oh well, it's a wiki, anyone can fix... ħuman 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is not true, he just hates everything new. When it becomes old and people want to fix/improve/changes it, then he like it and defends it against the change. - π 12:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, well you hate everything on this wiki so I'm not surprised. d hominem 11:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm up to "B" and finding a lot of embarrassing... sorry guys, some of these really suck. ħuman 04:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks folks, I appreciate the link and comments. I was just knocked a little off-base when I saw the one I fixed. ħuman 00:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Humanties vs Science
- Moved to Forum:Humanties vs Science d hominem 19:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! ħuman 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Now, I'm no fan of violent little bastards.
but this seems to be a step too far (or a fingers to the groin too far). 06:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- The one about a kid dying when three people held him down sounds like a technique I'm familiar with, it's only authorised to be used for about 90 seconds at a time (probably for that very reason). Given what I know of people who work with violent offenders, particularly young ones, it seems less like "cruel and unusual" techniques and more individuals flouting the regulations designed to minimize and control their use - you're talking about situations where these kids are practically seconds from grabbing a knife and doing some serious damage here. Now, I know it's no excuse at all, especially for overstepping the control measures and regulations, but reading that and combining it with stories I've heard from the guys who work with them, the kids are't getting even a fraction of what they give. d hominem 08:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever the rights and wrongs it is important that we know about it in an open society. So thanks to the FOIA. Lily Inspirate me. 10:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Self explanatory.
...or why you'll never change entrenched opinion. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire?mode=PF
- On a slightly related note the Jam Experiment (original paper [http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/articles/Choice_is_Demotivating.pdf here) shows that we tend not to make decisions when there is too much choice. Lily Inspirate me. 10:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Periodic sillyness
Probably not new to you lot, but I found it funny. Hat tip 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Very nice, although I prefer this one. --Kels (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd seen the "funny" one somewhere before, it is a chuckle or two. But that "woo" one looks like a lot of work went into it. ħuman 22:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- What's great is it reads like a table of contents for RW. It would be awesome to have here with an image map linking each element to its article! ħuman 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I axed permission in the comments section. ħuman 22:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can we do image maps in wikitalk? 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt it, but no harm in trying, right? MW does support some html, after all. I'd love to put this in an article called RationalWiki:Periodic Table of Contents. We'll see what the owner says. ħuman 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've started doing it in a spreadsheet (Open Office) - just have to convert it when it's done (?) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah but don't upload it unless he (82...?) gives us permission. But, indeed, a table would work. ħuman 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't dream of it. The link to the converter I've used before seems to have died. 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah but don't upload it unless he (82...?) gives us permission. But, indeed, a table would work. ħuman 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Glad you like it 82.23.208.15 (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. If that's you, Crispian, how do you feel about my request for permission to use it here? ħuman 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pleeeeeeease! 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is a MW extension that allows image mapping. Google "mediawiki imagemap", first hit is http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageMap ħuman 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen it, trouble with that is editing it after it's been embedded: the table would be easier, I think. 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure I follow you. Constructing an image map is a bitch piece of work, but once done, it's done. Does the MW version use the "full size image" coords, or the ones for whatever size the image is displayed at? ħuman 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The easiest way is to create an HTML Image map & convert it. What I mean is adding/changing links & stuff. There's a lot on there we don't yet have articles on. 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- see here 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really see the difference. Mostly it's grunt work, moving a cursor around in an image program and typing the coords into the rendering program (in this case edit page on RW under MW). I did one once, it's a lot of work, but the results are nice [1]. ħuman 00:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- KImageMapEditor can graphically make image maps. Never used it, but it seems userfriendly enough. — Pietrow ☏ 11:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Image maps is easy enuff, it's gettin' 'em to work in wiki that's the trubble. 11:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well the image is basically a table so a wikitable seems the most sensible (to me). A couple of templates should set up the internal cell formatting.
- P.S. Very nice find, Susan. Lily Inspirate me. 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've started it but without the author/designer's (82.23.208.15?) permission I've stopped. 12:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have a periodic table already constructed if it helps, although that was done a while ago, long before my wiki-fu evolved very much. d hominem 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've started it but without the author/designer's (82.23.208.15?) permission I've stopped. 12:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Image maps is easy enuff, it's gettin' 'em to work in wiki that's the trubble. 11:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- KImageMapEditor can graphically make image maps. Never used it, but it seems userfriendly enough. — Pietrow ☏ 11:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really see the difference. Mostly it's grunt work, moving a cursor around in an image program and typing the coords into the rendering program (in this case edit page on RW under MW). I did one once, it's a lot of work, but the results are nice [1]. ħuman 00:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- see here 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The easiest way is to create an HTML Image map & convert it. What I mean is adding/changing links & stuff. There's a lot on there we don't yet have articles on. 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure I follow you. Constructing an image map is a bitch piece of work, but once done, it's done. Does the MW version use the "full size image" coords, or the ones for whatever size the image is displayed at? ħuman 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen it, trouble with that is editing it after it's been embedded: the table would be easier, I think. 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is a MW extension that allows image mapping. Google "mediawiki imagemap", first hit is http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageMap ħuman 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pleeeeeeease! 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. If that's you, Crispian, how do you feel about my request for permission to use it here? ħuman 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've started doing it in a spreadsheet (Open Office) - just have to convert it when it's done (?) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt it, but no harm in trying, right? MW does support some html, after all. I'd love to put this in an article called RationalWiki:Periodic Table of Contents. We'll see what the owner says. ħuman 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can we do image maps in wikitalk? 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I axed permission in the comments section. ħuman 22:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yay!
Crispian just emailed me saying he would be delighted for us to put it on here. He's going to email me a hi-rez copy this evening, and I think I'll ask him for one that is legible at ~1000px wide if possible so it can be read on the wiki page (reasonably) easily. ħuman 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
9,000 Year-Old Beer from Dogfish Head
If you're into beer made from "rice, grapes, hawthorn berries, honey and chrysanthemum flowers," have at it. Personally, I'll stick with Rochefort (when I have the money) or Hirter (when I don't). Junggai (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I prefer beer made form malt, hops, and yeast, but maybe that's just my old fashioned ways. The real question is how did they get a beer 3,000 years older than the Earth? Sound suspicious, to say the least. DickTurpis (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Satan put the beer there while he was busy burying fossils. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 21:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- (E.C.) I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but I thought the same exact thing. Wasn't there a thread here last week called "Damn you Conservapedia!," lamenting how following CP warps our brains to automatically see things from a YEC perspective? Junggai (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seems unlikely that could have happened last week. Everyone knows the world was created last Thursday, and that hardly allows much time for this to have been discussed. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 21:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking for XKCD cartoon
It's the one with people on the train. There's a speech bubble saying "Look at these sheep going about their daily lives without thinking! I'm the only thinking person in the world!" and it traces to several people. It's relevant because I'm debating someone who insists on classifying people who disagree with him as 'slave-zombies'. EddyP (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sheeple Worm(t | c) 08:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- That was speedy. Thanks! EddyP (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- it was easy ;) Worm(t | c) 09:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of xkcd, I loved last Friday's. MDB (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- What's a "Fred Rogers"? 13:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a very disturbing sex act. I believe it involves pooping into another person's ass. DickTurpis (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)The late host of the American children's TV show, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood and one of the most kind, decent human beings who ever lived. He was a Presbyterian minister, and if Presbyterians named saints, I have no doubt he'd be a candidate right now. Check out this segment of his wikipedia biography to see just what kind of a man he was. MDB (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- So which of you am I to believe? On the one hand it's a perverted godbotherer on t'other it's a respectable habit between consenting adults. 13:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can I just butt in here and say that this edit makes my edit count all 4's? Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- So which of you am I to believe? On the one hand it's a perverted godbotherer on t'other it's a respectable habit between consenting adults. 13:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- What's a "Fred Rogers"? 13:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of xkcd, I loved last Friday's. MDB (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- it was easy ;) Worm(t | c) 09:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- That was speedy. Thanks! EddyP (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I get that Rogers was a good guy and all and I'm not trying to cast dispersions about his actual character by what I'm about to say, but don't any of you think it even slightly weird that a person in a position to be a world-class pediofile has the middle name "McFeely"? I really mean no offense, but his name was "McFeely." It is just one of those things. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
10 Scary Things from Republican Party State Platforms
or, perhaps, Conservapedia's 'Things to do' list. MDB (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
CP namespace cleanup
Out of boredom I've been going through the CP namespace for lulz, and decided to clean it up... it's lacking a lot of consistency, and a lot of articles are in a terrible state. There's also a large number of articles which I feel can be deleted, such as this one. Shall I just go through and delete them on sight (afterall, they can be restored) or is there a process i should adhere to? I'm confident that nobody will object to the deletions I intend to make. There are yet more I would think can be deleted but they might be contentious, so I'll start talk page comments for those ones. ONE / TALK 17:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with CP namespace is that things happen so rapidly at CP that WIGO is pretty much the only way to document them consistently. Sometimes people feel inspired to write more on a CP subject & it becomes a CP space article, but unless they make a real effort to update it periodically, it starts looking outdated & abandoned pretty soon. Most CP space articles, except for high profile ones like the ones about senior admins, capture CP at one particular point in time, like a (Ass)fly in amber. RWW suffers the same problem. It might be worth separating the CP space articles into a few high priority ones which should be brought up to date & kept up to date, & others which probably won't be updated but could be tagged with a template explaining that they show events at CP at one particular time & are preserved for historical interest. The real trash could be deleted, but should probably be discussed first. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think many of them can be cleaned up, for example, if we have duplicate articles in the mainspace and then a CP-space one merely documenting the interpretation of the subject on Conservapedia, it's unnecessary. We need to get away from CP-centrism so for the most part they won't be missed. d hominem 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Might I suggest a "cpstub" template for the dustier ones? ħuman
- There are some that are simply never going to be expanded upon or brought up to date though, like the example in the OP. I know it's not up to me, but I'd rather just trim the namespace down to the content that is either informative or amusing. ONE / TALK 08:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it's kind of up to everyone who wants to stick in their oar. As you've gone through it and sorted it, it would be the best place to start from and lead the charge. d hominem 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm good point. Well as I said, anyone can restore articles whose deletion they disagree with. I'll justify each deletion as best as possible in the deletion reason. ONE / TALK 11:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mind if I put one minor hurdle in your way? I don't want to prevent or slow down a worthwhile cleanup, but how about posting a list of proposed deletions here, say, and then allowing a couple three days for anyone who cares to defend or improve any given article (or add to the list)? ħuman 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oooh good idea. I would prefer that to the deletion template actually. I'll work on it. ONE / TALK 16:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the CP namespace has a lot of dusty stuff in it. Some articles have real historical importance and should be marked as representing things as they were at some particular point in the past. Some such articles really need to be update to reflect that 'someone' has gone through and systematically oversighted references on CP for which there aren't captures. I'm not aware of what specifically people would say needs to be deleted so I think the delete template should stick for longer than 3 days tho - not everyone inclined to take a stand on these things checks in that often. I'd suggest adding a delete template that notes the item will be mothballed at some indeterminate point in the future so that we can inventory the duds and get a better handle on what all there is and come up with a coherent project so people with interest can have a chance to participate and this doesn't end up being an indiscriminate delete-spree. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well put. I would still like to see a list if someone adds a whole bunch of delete templates though. ħuman 19:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the CP namespace has a lot of dusty stuff in it. Some articles have real historical importance and should be marked as representing things as they were at some particular point in the past. Some such articles really need to be update to reflect that 'someone' has gone through and systematically oversighted references on CP for which there aren't captures. I'm not aware of what specifically people would say needs to be deleted so I think the delete template should stick for longer than 3 days tho - not everyone inclined to take a stand on these things checks in that often. I'd suggest adding a delete template that notes the item will be mothballed at some indeterminate point in the future so that we can inventory the duds and get a better handle on what all there is and come up with a coherent project so people with interest can have a chance to participate and this doesn't end up being an indiscriminate delete-spree. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oooh good idea. I would prefer that to the deletion template actually. I'll work on it. ONE / TALK 16:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mind if I put one minor hurdle in your way? I don't want to prevent or slow down a worthwhile cleanup, but how about posting a list of proposed deletions here, say, and then allowing a couple three days for anyone who cares to defend or improve any given article (or add to the list)? ħuman 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm good point. Well as I said, anyone can restore articles whose deletion they disagree with. I'll justify each deletion as best as possible in the deletion reason. ONE / TALK 11:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it's kind of up to everyone who wants to stick in their oar. As you've gone through it and sorted it, it would be the best place to start from and lead the charge. d hominem 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are some that are simply never going to be expanded upon or brought up to date though, like the example in the OP. I know it's not up to me, but I'd rather just trim the namespace down to the content that is either informative or amusing. ONE / TALK 08:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Might I suggest a "cpstub" template for the dustier ones? ħuman
- I think many of them can be cleaned up, for example, if we have duplicate articles in the mainspace and then a CP-space one merely documenting the interpretation of the subject on Conservapedia, it's unnecessary. We need to get away from CP-centrism so for the most part they won't be missed. d hominem 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
RationalWiki foundation, last chance for feedback (reprise)
Trent originally made this thread which was archived. I think I figured out what this is the last chance for: All the bylaws are amendable by majority vote of the board, just as they are amendable by Trent now. But the Trustees may be less inclined to relinquish power, once they have it, therefore this may be our last change for the following:
- To say we want Trent to maintain more power (so long as he is willing and able).
- To say how many people should (initially) be Trustees.
- To say how the (initial) voting should be done.
Also, due to the typical inertia of precedent/tradition, these things may never change if the proposal is not changed before the first election.
See the talk page of the proposed bylaws.
~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Trustees won't have power, but they will have responsibility. This makes it considerably different to most "positions" in RW where there is a lot of power but no incentive to be responsible for it. There wouldn't be any power for the trustees to "give up" as they won't actually do anything in particular. d hominem 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- But who will control the means of production? Surely the valiant proletariat must arise and wrest command of the wiki from the authoritarian clutches of these bourgeois trustee swine. ¡Tierra y Libertad! WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lumenos, ... , ... , oh, why do I bother? ħuman 02:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It seems you assume there will never be a major dispute, but I am thinking loooong term, like 100-1000 years from now. Shit happens and maybe RationalWiki will be around in a 1000 years, who knows? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 05:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Simple question: Let's say there are some strong disagreements and ten bureaucrats vote and decide to de-crat five other bureaucrats. The Trustees vote to undo this situation and they re-crat the five and de-crat the ten. Wouldn't the Trustees be legally and technically able to do this? If not, please explain what would stop them. Would they not have the necessary "password" to change user rights by direct server access? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 05:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- You really have no clue, do you? The trustees will not be involved in the day-to-day activities of the site. And they won't have server access. You sorely try my patience with your confusion. Your "example" of cratting wars could happen today. Luckily the Lame Jugulars could resolve such silliness. ħuman 06:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I guess I should have asked instead of assuming the owner of the server would have access to it. Unless Lame Jugulars has server access I don't see what they could do if they were all de-crated in the above scenario. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 06:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The foundation is "meta" it is designed to oversee the running of things in a really general way. The day-to-day type stuff that you are focused on will be handled by people who the board hires. To make a vivid, though loose, analogy, the board of directories of Pepsi doesn't care who gets the night shift at your local Taco Bell. tmtoulouse 06:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice analogy, Trent. Although it makes me worry about the paradigm of your diet... ħuman 07:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that analogy is... erm, special... but it's true, the board are likely to be identified clearly, but very unlikely to be placed in a special usergroup. Indeed, there's nothing in particular that says they need to be an extremely active editor, e.g., we could have AmesG or PalMD join the board - although that would be preferable for them to be currently active in editing the wiki for numerous pracitcal reasons, such as being up do date with the latest happening. Although I'm not sure if the board would have official overarching, any power over potential content disputes, particularly over slander or copyright infringement as it would be the board's responsibility to deal with that. I expect they wouldn't, but RW editors would be stupid not to take on board their suggestions and opinions regarding these matters; and if the majority of crats and users end up actively opposing the board in such matters, then things have gone bad probably beyond repair. d hominem 10:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I put in bold a simple question above. I still don't know the answer. It seems like Trent answers the simple question with "yes". If the Board is charged with hiring and firing everyone else, it sounds as though they have ultimate authority. For example, maybe the Trustees don't "have" server access themselves but they would have legal authority to fire a person with server access, if s/he doesn't undo a "rebellion" of a majority. I suppose rebellions of this sort are much less likely for Taco Bell employees, so the analogy is a little stretched. Human replied, "[y]our "example" of cratting wars could happen today. Luckily the Lame Jugulars could resolve such silliness." So I asked a follow up question, "What does Lame Jugulars do if they all get de-cratted?" Human claims the Trustees will not have "server access". Perhaps there is a sort of balance of power in that the Foundation has "legal authority" but does not actually have the means to enforce their legal power therefore someone with the necessary skills, "passwords", or the physical access to the server, could veto a decision of the RationalWiki Foundation? I would like to know who ultimately controls rationalwiki.org (if there is crat war). ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 11:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I propose that if a huge fight breaks out and the site descends into anarchy with a massive crat war and the Lame Jugulars being chased out of town, I fly to Trent's apartment, get the server, and hit Lumenos over the head with it - there by ending any need for anyone to care as the site will be off-line. - π 12:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lumenos seems to misunderstand the point of crats and almost the entire point of the LJ. The former is not a special position, it is there for adding the sysop status to new users and essentially just means "I've been here a while". It holds no position of authority or responsibility. Indeed, the user group doesn't give anyone any extra access - bar the ability to check what has been oversighted from BONs/users/sysops on grounds of breech of privacy, but as crats are trusted users, that's acceptable. What Lumenos is describing is no different to what can happen now if someone with server access abuses that trust. Ultimately, and for the forseeable future, Trent is the one with sole physical access to the machine so has ultimate control over everything. In the future, the board will appoint an individual with that responsibility and, for the forseeable future, that is going to be Trent. An issue in 6 months time (you may as well ask what happens to RW.org in the event of an alien invasion) will be dealt with in the same manner as in issue in 6 minutes time. d hominem 12:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- With regards the questions from Lumenos, I think what he described is pretty much the HCM to end HCM situation in which RW dies or becomes the personal toy of one or more people. In such a situation there'd be little reason to hang around, and I imagine a fork would be the preferred option. We'll have access to a dump of the content from here, and the licensing would generally allow anyone to rebuild RW in a new home home. As Arm said, this could happen now, but it's fairly unlikely given that the people with access to cause that kind of damage are generally harmless or at least drawing the line at actions that really would kill the site. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I know all that. What I want to know is which side of the fork would get the domain rationalwiki.org. I thought that would be the side with the majority of Trustees, but Human tells me they would not have "server access" and seemed to imply the Lame Jugulars would have server access. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, interesting question. This is why we should not discount the idea of throwing the server at people out of hand. - π 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Everything that there is to own, will be owned by the Foundation. This is run by the trustees. The LJ is nothing more than a conflict resolution system; it wouldn't decide who keeps the domain name in the case of a "breakup", it would always stay with the Foundation, which is ran by the Trustees. The Foundation is the equiverlent of a new indiviudal, a separate entity - this is, in fact, the entire point - and is only represented/ran by Trustees. The Trustees don't necessarily get server access, and those with server access aren't necessarily Trustees (although an overlap will be probably, and likely would be useful). Those with server access will be appointed by whoever is technical director of the site, this TD is appointed by the Trustees. It will most likely be Trent for the forseeable future. The LJ has nothing to do with it in any way shape or form. In the likely event that Trustees disagree, then they can squabble amongst themselves to solve their issues. This wouldn't affect the site as it would be owned and supported by The Foundation, not the individual Trustees. If those with server access abuse their powers and trust, they can be reprimanded by the technical director. d hominem 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, interesting question. This is why we should not discount the idea of throwing the server at people out of hand. - π 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I know all that. What I want to know is which side of the fork would get the domain rationalwiki.org. I thought that would be the side with the majority of Trustees, but Human tells me they would not have "server access" and seemed to imply the Lame Jugulars would have server access. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- With regards the questions from Lumenos, I think what he described is pretty much the HCM to end HCM situation in which RW dies or becomes the personal toy of one or more people. In such a situation there'd be little reason to hang around, and I imagine a fork would be the preferred option. We'll have access to a dump of the content from here, and the licensing would generally allow anyone to rebuild RW in a new home home. As Arm said, this could happen now, but it's fairly unlikely given that the people with access to cause that kind of damage are generally harmless or at least drawing the line at actions that really would kill the site. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lumenos seems to misunderstand the point of crats and almost the entire point of the LJ. The former is not a special position, it is there for adding the sysop status to new users and essentially just means "I've been here a while". It holds no position of authority or responsibility. Indeed, the user group doesn't give anyone any extra access - bar the ability to check what has been oversighted from BONs/users/sysops on grounds of breech of privacy, but as crats are trusted users, that's acceptable. What Lumenos is describing is no different to what can happen now if someone with server access abuses that trust. Ultimately, and for the forseeable future, Trent is the one with sole physical access to the machine so has ultimate control over everything. In the future, the board will appoint an individual with that responsibility and, for the forseeable future, that is going to be Trent. An issue in 6 months time (you may as well ask what happens to RW.org in the event of an alien invasion) will be dealt with in the same manner as in issue in 6 minutes time. d hominem 12:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I propose that if a huge fight breaks out and the site descends into anarchy with a massive crat war and the Lame Jugulars being chased out of town, I fly to Trent's apartment, get the server, and hit Lumenos over the head with it - there by ending any need for anyone to care as the site will be off-line. - π 12:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I put in bold a simple question above. I still don't know the answer. It seems like Trent answers the simple question with "yes". If the Board is charged with hiring and firing everyone else, it sounds as though they have ultimate authority. For example, maybe the Trustees don't "have" server access themselves but they would have legal authority to fire a person with server access, if s/he doesn't undo a "rebellion" of a majority. I suppose rebellions of this sort are much less likely for Taco Bell employees, so the analogy is a little stretched. Human replied, "[y]our "example" of cratting wars could happen today. Luckily the Lame Jugulars could resolve such silliness." So I asked a follow up question, "What does Lame Jugulars do if they all get de-cratted?" Human claims the Trustees will not have "server access". Perhaps there is a sort of balance of power in that the Foundation has "legal authority" but does not actually have the means to enforce their legal power therefore someone with the necessary skills, "passwords", or the physical access to the server, could veto a decision of the RationalWiki Foundation? I would like to know who ultimately controls rationalwiki.org (if there is crat war). ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 11:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that analogy is... erm, special... but it's true, the board are likely to be identified clearly, but very unlikely to be placed in a special usergroup. Indeed, there's nothing in particular that says they need to be an extremely active editor, e.g., we could have AmesG or PalMD join the board - although that would be preferable for them to be currently active in editing the wiki for numerous pracitcal reasons, such as being up do date with the latest happening. Although I'm not sure if the board would have official overarching, any power over potential content disputes, particularly over slander or copyright infringement as it would be the board's responsibility to deal with that. I expect they wouldn't, but RW editors would be stupid not to take on board their suggestions and opinions regarding these matters; and if the majority of crats and users end up actively opposing the board in such matters, then things have gone bad probably beyond repair. d hominem 10:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice analogy, Trent. Although it makes me worry about the paradigm of your diet... ħuman 07:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The foundation is "meta" it is designed to oversee the running of things in a really general way. The day-to-day type stuff that you are focused on will be handled by people who the board hires. To make a vivid, though loose, analogy, the board of directories of Pepsi doesn't care who gets the night shift at your local Taco Bell. tmtoulouse 06:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I guess I should have asked instead of assuming the owner of the server would have access to it. Unless Lame Jugulars has server access I don't see what they could do if they were all de-crated in the above scenario. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 06:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- You really have no clue, do you? The trustees will not be involved in the day-to-day activities of the site. And they won't have server access. You sorely try my patience with your confusion. Your "example" of cratting wars could happen today. Luckily the Lame Jugulars could resolve such silliness. ħuman 06:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- But who will control the means of production? Surely the valiant proletariat must arise and wrest command of the wiki from the authoritarian clutches of these bourgeois trustee swine. ¡Tierra y Libertad! WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this strange?
I really can't wait for Kim Jong-Il to die. I'm ridiculously curious as to what will happen. Fight between the sons? Will one of the senior party members make a bid? EddyP (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not strange to want to see a dictator die, they deserve it. What is strange is that it seems you only want some sort of political spectacle instead of the freedom of North Korea. :P jk. If anybody is interested they should read [this] NetharianCubicles are prisons! 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say dictators deserve to die. Anyway, somebody told me (at length and in detail, but I've forgotten most of it) that a danger with Kim Jong-Il is that if he dies and succession is messy, the USA may be tempted to secure the (Three? Six?) nukes and the large chemical weapon stockpile in case a crazy gets them, and if the US is perceived to be inclined that way, the PLA might go in first. It is interesting to think about, and if people say that's strange, just pretend you're trying to work out how a free North Korea might realistically emerge. Broccoli (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- South Korea is NOT looking forward to inheriting the resultant mess. No-one else will want it and it'll make the reunification of Germany look fantastically cheap by comparison - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to echo the idea of not wanting them to die out of hate, spite or anything like that, but I do have a morbid curiosity about how it would play out... d hominem 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Netharian: Already read it. It was hell to find, too. Freedom for North Korea will be difficult - you have a paranoid dictator and extremely repressive regime, a citizenry incapable of rebelling, nukes, and a huge refugee problem waiting to happen for China and SK. IMO the best chance for freedom is everything goes tits up after Jong-il dies and the UN steps in. EddyP (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) Ultimately, Kim's death will be a good thing - not for reasons of spite, but because being rid of the personality cult (unless there's a suitable successor to step right into his shoes & exert the same kind of cult, which I find unlikely) would be the first step towards loosening up. Look at Russia after Stalin's death, or China after Mao - hardly rosy, but the level of oppression definitely went down a notch. I think reunification with S.Korea would probably still be a very long way. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously Eddy? Your best option is the UN? Anyway, I should think that the UN, being a tool of Western power, would be unacceptable to China. A less-crazy puppet leader might be more realistic, since that provides China with a buffer, might provide a long-term solution to the refugee question and would be less likely to frustrate Chinese foreign policy by blowing things up. Was it you who talked my ear off about this? Broccoli (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)It'll definitely be a case of it getting worse before it gets better. His successor might just inherit the personality cult in the same way Jong-Il continued on from Il-Sung. But whether that can effectively continue to a third generation is debatable. I'm not sure about the UN stepping in, would the US happily lead a charge into there with peacekeeping, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, could the main players in the UN afford it? d hominem 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Will anything even change? The technical leader of North Korea is still Kim Il-Sung (Kim Jong-Il's dad), and he's been dead for 16 years. I find it difficult to believe that Kim Jong-Il hasn't been grooming one of his sons for the takeover of North Korea (his youngest is tipped for the role, according to wikipedia). And if his other two sons don't like it... so what? What can they do? North Korea does not strike me as the kind of country that has multiple factions in it's government, like where one of the sons can take over one for a rebellion. If his oldest son doesn't like the arrangement, what can he do? He's not going to control any of the military or have any of the popular support, because that's not what Kim Jong-Il wants. As for the changeover when he dies... I don't think it'd be a problem. Kim Il-Sung ruled the country from 1948 to 1994, and he had a cult of personality every bit as pervasive and insane as Kim Jong-Il, and there wasn't any huge upheaval when *he* died, so I can't see there being much of one when Kim Jong-Il dies either. In my mind, the best anyone can hope for when he dies is that his son, who has apparently had an international education of some sort, will be less of a complete asshole than he was. (I was looking for a link to a series of photos where someone had added amusing text to pictures from a tour of factories Kim Jong-Il did, but I couldn't find them) X Stickman (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Except I've heard it said that the elder Kim at least know how to run a country (as a brutal thug of a dictator, mind you). The younger Kim, though, is an idiot who is essentially only carrying on based on the "good will" his father's cult of personality created. I suppose it's possible that the next Kim in line is smarter than his dad, but the pattern would seem to indicate the opposite, particularly if most of his training came from his father.
- Will anything even change? The technical leader of North Korea is still Kim Il-Sung (Kim Jong-Il's dad), and he's been dead for 16 years. I find it difficult to believe that Kim Jong-Il hasn't been grooming one of his sons for the takeover of North Korea (his youngest is tipped for the role, according to wikipedia). And if his other two sons don't like it... so what? What can they do? North Korea does not strike me as the kind of country that has multiple factions in it's government, like where one of the sons can take over one for a rebellion. If his oldest son doesn't like the arrangement, what can he do? He's not going to control any of the military or have any of the popular support, because that's not what Kim Jong-Il wants. As for the changeover when he dies... I don't think it'd be a problem. Kim Il-Sung ruled the country from 1948 to 1994, and he had a cult of personality every bit as pervasive and insane as Kim Jong-Il, and there wasn't any huge upheaval when *he* died, so I can't see there being much of one when Kim Jong-Il dies either. In my mind, the best anyone can hope for when he dies is that his son, who has apparently had an international education of some sort, will be less of a complete asshole than he was. (I was looking for a link to a series of photos where someone had added amusing text to pictures from a tour of factories Kim Jong-Il did, but I couldn't find them) X Stickman (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)It'll definitely be a case of it getting worse before it gets better. His successor might just inherit the personality cult in the same way Jong-Il continued on from Il-Sung. But whether that can effectively continue to a third generation is debatable. I'm not sure about the UN stepping in, would the US happily lead a charge into there with peacekeeping, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, could the main players in the UN afford it? d hominem 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously Eddy? Your best option is the UN? Anyway, I should think that the UN, being a tool of Western power, would be unacceptable to China. A less-crazy puppet leader might be more realistic, since that provides China with a buffer, might provide a long-term solution to the refugee question and would be less likely to frustrate Chinese foreign policy by blowing things up. Was it you who talked my ear off about this? Broccoli (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) Ultimately, Kim's death will be a good thing - not for reasons of spite, but because being rid of the personality cult (unless there's a suitable successor to step right into his shoes & exert the same kind of cult, which I find unlikely) would be the first step towards loosening up. Look at Russia after Stalin's death, or China after Mao - hardly rosy, but the level of oppression definitely went down a notch. I think reunification with S.Korea would probably still be a very long way. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Netharian: Already read it. It was hell to find, too. Freedom for North Korea will be difficult - you have a paranoid dictator and extremely repressive regime, a citizenry incapable of rebelling, nukes, and a huge refugee problem waiting to happen for China and SK. IMO the best chance for freedom is everything goes tits up after Jong-il dies and the UN steps in. EddyP (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to echo the idea of not wanting them to die out of hate, spite or anything like that, but I do have a morbid curiosity about how it would play out... d hominem 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- South Korea is NOT looking forward to inheriting the resultant mess. No-one else will want it and it'll make the reunification of Germany look fantastically cheap by comparison - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say dictators deserve to die. Anyway, somebody told me (at length and in detail, but I've forgotten most of it) that a danger with Kim Jong-Il is that if he dies and succession is messy, the USA may be tempted to secure the (Three? Six?) nukes and the large chemical weapon stockpile in case a crazy gets them, and if the US is perceived to be inclined that way, the PLA might go in first. It is interesting to think about, and if people say that's strange, just pretend you're trying to work out how a free North Korea might realistically emerge. Broccoli (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Further, I've also seen arguments that the North Korean people aren't quite as brainwashed as is the general perception, and they have at least some idea they're probably the most oppressed people on Earth. If that's true, and you add in a leader with absolute no skill at manipulating the citizenry, you've got a recipe for a civil war.
- The nightmare scenario is that things in North Korea get so bad that the leadership decides they have nothing to lose, and attack South Korea. And they have nukes. No one really knows how good their missiles are, but the general assumption is they couldn't strike the United States, they might be able to strike Japan, and South Korea could be a wasteland. MDB (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I guess, but nuking your immediate neighbor is radioactive suicide, I'd think. And nuking anyone else would also be suicide. What happens the day after they nuke Japan? Half the world declares war on them. It would be a short war. ħuman 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even ruling out North Korea going nuclear, the "we have nothing to lose so we might as well go to war" scenario is a possibility. And it could make a certain kind of perverse sense: they get rid of mouths to feed when they're killed in the war, the leadership goes out as military leaders rather than ending up like, for instance, Nicolae Ceaucescu (sp?), and South Korea, Japan and the US rebuild the country afterwards. The decent thing to do would be to go out like East Germany did, just throw open the borders, tacitly admit failure, and let the other half of the divided country fix your problems, but we can't even be sure if the leadership there is even rational. (Does Kim even believe a fraction of his own propaganda?) North Korea is a doomed state; the question is how much the leadership recognizes that, who will be in charge when it completely falls apart, and what they'll do then. MDB (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I guess, but nuking your immediate neighbor is radioactive suicide, I'd think. And nuking anyone else would also be suicide. What happens the day after they nuke Japan? Half the world declares war on them. It would be a short war. ħuman 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The personality cult has basically gone to piss. The father still has some measure of admiration, but it seems that most people don't like KJI. The thing about this succession is that the people know very little about the probable successor, Kim Jong-un, whereas KJI was very well established by the time his father died. And KJI was KIS's only son, while KJI has three, and the probably successor is the youngest. As for the factions, there have apparently been assassination attempts on the disgraced elder son of KJI, and there was apparently a plot to blow up KJI's train by parts of the army. EddyP (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fetch the popcorn... d hominem 14:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The nightmare scenario is that things in North Korea get so bad that the leadership decides they have nothing to lose, and attack South Korea. And they have nukes. No one really knows how good their missiles are, but the general assumption is they couldn't strike the United States, they might be able to strike Japan, and South Korea could be a wasteland. MDB (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Side note: whilst researching (read: opening some wikipedia pages while eating a sandwich with my other hand) this stuff, I found out that KJI's oldest son *was* his favourite and tipped successor, until he got caught trying to sneak into Japan on a false passport... to visit Disneyland. At age 30. He was essentially sneaking out of his dad's house to see Mickey Mouse, and he's 30 years old. I found this absolutely hilarious. X Stickman (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you ignore the fact it's horrifically real, a lot of stories about North Korea read like a hilarious parody of a dictatorship. My favorite is the claim that Kim Jong-Il once shot something like a 40 in 18 holes of golf, including three or four holes-in-one. That would easily make him the greatest golfer in history. MDB (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did he also swim a raging river unaided or was that Mao? I mean, all these guys are freaking nuts and tend to blur together a little. d hominem 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I heartily recommend Pyongyang by Guy Delisle to anybody who's interested in N.Korea &/or likes comic books & animation. It's about the experience of being a foreigner working in Pyongyang, including obligations like visiting museums full of anti-American propaganda and bowing to statues and waxworks of the Great Leader, plus being told lots of gushing anecdotes about KIS & KJI by wide-eyed brainwashed Korean translators & guides. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- NK propaganda is a huge source of unintentional comedy. My personal favourites are how on-the-spot guidance by the Dear Leader led to improvements in Goat breeding and milking, and how, in reaction to international condemnation of the sinking of the SK ship, NK workers are now running to work of their own accord so that they can do more work for the state and thus frustrate the designs of their enemies. EddyP (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I heartily recommend Pyongyang by Guy Delisle to anybody who's interested in N.Korea &/or likes comic books & animation. It's about the experience of being a foreigner working in Pyongyang, including obligations like visiting museums full of anti-American propaganda and bowing to statues and waxworks of the Great Leader, plus being told lots of gushing anecdotes about KIS & KJI by wide-eyed brainwashed Korean translators & guides. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did he also swim a raging river unaided or was that Mao? I mean, all these guys are freaking nuts and tend to blur together a little. d hominem 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Carl Zimmer and the Lenski affair
Carl Zimmer talks about the Lenski affair at his blog. (It starts around 24 minutes in the video: [2].... and RationalWiki is a citation on his slides!) Sterile poodle 00:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice find Penis pie! I'll watch later. AceX-102 00:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone seen a transcript? I've grabbed some of it File:Zimmer 01.pngFile:Zimmer 02.pngFile:Zimmer 03.png 02:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Those images don't seem to convey much. Also the copyright notice... um, no. We don't own them. We stole them. We must now delete them. Unless we get permission. ħuman 04:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I have no idea what he actually said but "posted the lecture at their site, where you can also download it in various formats" If that isn't the OK to use it, I don't know what is. The copyright notice wants changing, I'll grant. One shows that he's talking about CP & t'other two have our web address on them. This has gotta be worthy of notice? 04:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, it's worthy of notice, yes. But "download" =/= "republish under your own copyright". ħuman 05:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair use it IMO. tmtoulouse 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can't imagine he'd mind though. AceX-102 05:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Permission is always a joy to receive when asked for politely. Fair use, sure, but permission is so much wetter. ħuman 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Human, and we can't automatically presume that people "won't mind". Also we should watch how we apply "fair use", it's not just using something that we think is relevant to our site. If it's not for parody or ridicule then it should be used constructively with due reference to the original author. Lily Inspirate me. 07:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Fair use" is a legal defence (and one that applies only in the US at that), not a reason for copyright infringement. If you assume that the author "won't mind" then track down some contact details and ask. As Human says, it's a joy to recieve permission for that sort of thing, not least because it puts the site in good standing. d hominem 10:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Human, and we can't automatically presume that people "won't mind". Also we should watch how we apply "fair use", it's not just using something that we think is relevant to our site. If it's not for parody or ridicule then it should be used constructively with due reference to the original author. Lily Inspirate me. 07:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Permission is always a joy to receive when asked for politely. Fair use, sure, but permission is so much wetter. ħuman 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can't imagine he'd mind though. AceX-102 05:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair use it IMO. tmtoulouse 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, it's worthy of notice, yes. But "download" =/= "republish under your own copyright". ħuman 05:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I have no idea what he actually said but "posted the lecture at their site, where you can also download it in various formats" If that isn't the OK to use it, I don't know what is. The copyright notice wants changing, I'll grant. One shows that he's talking about CP & t'other two have our web address on them. This has gotta be worthy of notice? 04:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Those images don't seem to convey much. Also the copyright notice... um, no. We don't own them. We stole them. We must now delete them. Unless we get permission. ħuman 04:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone seen a transcript? I've grabbed some of it File:Zimmer 01.pngFile:Zimmer 02.pngFile:Zimmer 03.png 02:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Appointed Trustees and foundation updates (important) (Sticky)
(please to unsticky when this is history ħuman 07:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) )
As has been discussed in multiple locations we will soon be taking an important step with the formation of a non-profit corporation to manage RW. Everything is slated to begin the first week of August. There will be a period of 3-4 months as we transition ownership, and work on establishing all the little elements needed for the foundation to function.
The work will be done by myself and 2 appointed trustees that will make up the initial board. The goal will be to have elections for the remaining trustee positions in January 2011. There is a lot that has to be done in the mean time, and your feedback, support and encouragement is appreciated. My goal is to make the establishment, the transition, and ultimately the management of the foundation as open and accountable to the RW users as possible.
The appointed trustees for this period are Human and Armondikov. While the three of us are ultimately responsible for seeing this thing done and done properly any concerns, feedback, suggestions, or help that anyone wishes to give is great.
The rough outline for what is going to happen is as follows:
- File papers of incorporation in NM (early August)
- File papers with the IRS (early-mid August)
- Approval of the by-laws (early-mid August)
- Transition ownership of the domain, hardware and other physical and intellectual property from me to the foundation (late August)
- Begin working out election of trustees, voting and nomination process, timelines, etc. (September/October)
- Finalize election procedures for trustees (Hopefully by November)
- Establishment of financial accounts for the foundation (Likely December as I will need to return to NM for a lot of it)
- Hold our first election for trustees (January)
- Hold our first full meeting of the board (January/February), where we establish general protocol for meetings, site management, etc.
Financial costs
None of this is free. Every document filed with the Secretary of State, the IRS, and state tax agencies has fees attached to them. Official copies of documents, notarization, and establishing legal ways to sign contracts electronically all have associated costs. I am prepared to foot whatever bill is necessary to see this through but if anyone has a few dollars they can afford to throw my way to help curtail the costs to myself personally I would be grateful. tmtoulouse 06:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have an estimate of the overall cost, including personal esigs, etc.? ħuman 07:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the order of $500-$600, which is why I am asking for assistance. tmtoulouse 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll dump some spare cash your way but you'll have to wait until October for anything substantial. d hominem 10:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on... if it costs this much, can we not go ahead with it "unofficially", as in do all the ground work and treat it "as if" it was real, and then incorporate properly when we A) have a need and B) have the cash? It can't cost anything to do it all "informally" and do the paper work further down the line, or am I missing something, like does the paperwork have to be done in order to share the physical responsibility such as potential lawsuits? d hominem 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Having it all filed is what gives the shielding. It creates a new "person" in a legal sense to take on the burdens. So no. It has to be in existence for any of the benefits to work. If we're (say) sued, and then file, then it only shields us as of when it's created. And ~$600 is right. I just did all that crap last summer. The bonus is, most of it is relatively painless. (I made a for-profit corporation, but I assume most of the paper work is similar.) Quaru (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I figured as much. I was just wondering if we could run "as if" and then if someone filed against us, we'd run away and cry. d hominem 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, sure. We could also shove broccoli in our ears and run through the streets naked. I just don't think it'd help the situation much. Quaru (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could we keep the broccoli thing as possible future idea? It has promise. Thanks for the update. I'll do the PayPal thing early next month ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, sure. We could also shove broccoli in our ears and run through the streets naked. I just don't think it'd help the situation much. Quaru (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I figured as much. I was just wondering if we could run "as if" and then if someone filed against us, we'd run away and cry. d hominem 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Having it all filed is what gives the shielding. It creates a new "person" in a legal sense to take on the burdens. So no. It has to be in existence for any of the benefits to work. If we're (say) sued, and then file, then it only shields us as of when it's created. And ~$600 is right. I just did all that crap last summer. The bonus is, most of it is relatively painless. (I made a for-profit corporation, but I assume most of the paper work is similar.) Quaru (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on... if it costs this much, can we not go ahead with it "unofficially", as in do all the ground work and treat it "as if" it was real, and then incorporate properly when we A) have a need and B) have the cash? It can't cost anything to do it all "informally" and do the paper work further down the line, or am I missing something, like does the paperwork have to be done in order to share the physical responsibility such as potential lawsuits? d hominem 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll dump some spare cash your way but you'll have to wait until October for anything substantial. d hominem 10:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the order of $500-$600, which is why I am asking for assistance. tmtoulouse 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The largest cost is with the IRS, and that doesn't have to be done right away anyway. tmtoulouse 15:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Conditional donations
I'm considering offering donations for certain changes in the bylaws. To make any donation (to RationalWiki Foundation) the bylaws would have to be held by a government agency, and be legally enforceable. They must be public records which I could access. Is that possible? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 17:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unless we are talking the establishment of a very large endowment, I am not really interested in "conditional" donations. The idea behind donations is that you believe in the project, want to and can support it, and trust me and the other board members to manage it. So the quid pro quo thing is out the window. However, I can address your points regardless of monetary attachment to them. First, the New Mexico Secretary of State and the Public Regulation Commission are the governing body over incorporating in New Mexico. They specifically make a clause that states that they do not keep bylaws of corporations. However, once approve by the board the bylaws are legally binding, though changeable. A copy of the bylaws must be kept at our registered agent's office in New Mexico and available for review or copies by anyone. tmtoulouse 17:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- That will do.
- I trust you wholeheartedly Trent...eeaaruum, although I must admit I sometimes wonder about your right-hand man. I'm hopefully kidding but (once you are gone) there doesn't seem to be any legal barrier to prevent
three[two] Trustees from deciding to change the bylaws, to make themselves rulers for life. So the other two essential conditions for me would be that the voting procedures could only be changed by majority vote of the community (although the Trustees could have veto power) and the same thing with the RationalWiki Copyright, to ensure that the "right" to fork (as you call it), would not be quietly de-righted, as we sleep one night. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 19:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)- The right to fork cannot be taken away. The licence for existing work cannot arbitrarily be changed. The Angband delicensing efforts are a nice example of how complicated that is. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone would try to make themselves "rulers for life". Not least because trying to find enough people among the type of person RW attacts to agree long enough to put together such a conspiracy and get elected as a Trustee is unlikely. If anything that stupid was tried, it's likely the community would vote with their feet, as most projects do when that sort of thing happens. Cf. the exodus from ScienceBlogs over giving Pepsi a blog. Still, these are hypothetical scenarios on par with aliens invading and proclaiming ownership of the site, what do you intend on amending the laws to to take that into account? d hominem 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- If editors have to vote with their feet, the bylaws have failed (democratically). I'm suggesting writing them so that editors can vote with their vote. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- An example of a change to the license would be, that it begin to specify how the work should be attributed (as is actually required by the Creative Commons license). Does the copied text have to be attributed to rationalwiki.org? Does every page that is copied have to be individually attributed to the page at rationalwiki.org? If the forked wiki is at a new domain, could they claim that they don't need to attribute anything to the rationalwiki.org because they have "moved" the wiki and the wiki at rationalwiki.org is no longer the "real" RationalWiki? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Iteresting, but I agree with Arm. You're overthinking thus. If Trent goes insane then we just fork and make the attributions to the "official RW". based on how this works, and how I believe it will continue to work, what you describe is highly unlikely, and our bypass will become too complicTed if we try to cover every eventuality. Overly complex rules invite loopholes. Excuse my typing. iPhone browser is being odd, so I can't see what I write. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- there are copies of by-laws on the web. Its worth checking if you are required to include one to allow them to be changed. Getting that wrong could be a problem. How meetings are conducted should probably be specified in terms of what comprises a quorum and what vote wins , simple majority, unanimous etc. It may put trustee names into public record. Hamster (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Copies of what bylaws? Include one what? Trent said they have to make the bylaws publicly available but I don't see how any of it can be enforced against the Trustees if they can change anything at anytime!
- "A quorum shall consist of a least the majority of Trustees."[3] "(1) Action required or permitted to be taken at a board of directors' meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action receives the affirmative vote of the majority of the board members."[4] ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not worried about Trent going crazy. We are talking about Trent handing over 'absolute control of this website, to the Trustees. They will never give it back. Everyone says, if they are bad, we will just leave. Sure you can leave, but why would you object to a proposal to allow you to vote instead of leave?!?!? You people confuse me. I don't really think the problem is that it is "complicated"... ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gawd you are so confused. The first motion I will be introducing will be to add a section describing a recall/impeachment process. ħuman 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ooow that was something I was gonna stick money in your g-string for. But in the year 8323 the Board could just erase it for some good reason. Please unconfuse me further, if possible. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 01:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The scenarios you are describing seem to situations were good will and amicable agreements are no longer possible and the environment on and off the wiki are so toxic that there is no possible reconcilable option. In which case we might as well pack it in because even if we can find away through the place will be dead any way. - π 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Conservapedia isn't "dead" but it seems it fails democratically. ~ Lumenos 12:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The scenarios you are describing seem to situations were good will and amicable agreements are no longer possible and the environment on and off the wiki are so toxic that there is no possible reconcilable option. In which case we might as well pack it in because even if we can find away through the place will be dead any way. - π 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ooow that was something I was gonna stick money in your g-string for. But in the year 8323 the Board could just erase it for some good reason. Please unconfuse me further, if possible. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 01:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gawd you are so confused. The first motion I will be introducing will be to add a section describing a recall/impeachment process. ħuman 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- there are copies of by-laws on the web. Its worth checking if you are required to include one to allow them to be changed. Getting that wrong could be a problem. How meetings are conducted should probably be specified in terms of what comprises a quorum and what vote wins , simple majority, unanimous etc. It may put trustee names into public record. Hamster (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Iteresting, but I agree with Arm. You're overthinking thus. If Trent goes insane then we just fork and make the attributions to the "official RW". based on how this works, and how I believe it will continue to work, what you describe is highly unlikely, and our bypass will become too complicTed if we try to cover every eventuality. Overly complex rules invite loopholes. Excuse my typing. iPhone browser is being odd, so I can't see what I write. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone would try to make themselves "rulers for life". Not least because trying to find enough people among the type of person RW attacts to agree long enough to put together such a conspiracy and get elected as a Trustee is unlikely. If anything that stupid was tried, it's likely the community would vote with their feet, as most projects do when that sort of thing happens. Cf. the exodus from ScienceBlogs over giving Pepsi a blog. Still, these are hypothetical scenarios on par with aliens invading and proclaiming ownership of the site, what do you intend on amending the laws to to take that into account? d hominem 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The right to fork cannot be taken away. The licence for existing work cannot arbitrarily be changed. The Angband delicensing efforts are a nice example of how complicated that is. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm considering offering donations for certain changes in the bylaws. I will double what ever Lumenos offers in exchange for a bylaw saying he may not participate in this process. - π 23:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll give 50 dollars if Pi posts a recording of him singing You are my sunshine. I also support his motion. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Once heard, it can not be unheard. It would be like the audio equivalent of two girls, one cup. - π 00:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thirding Pi's motion. ħuman 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- After the two girls, one cup reference I'd rather that we didn't have any more motions. Lily Inspirate me. 09:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thirding Pi's motion. ħuman 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Once heard, it can not be unheard. It would be like the audio equivalent of two girls, one cup. - π 00:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Now that this section has an amusing header, RW did once take a "slightly" conditional donation. It resulted in the creation of the most dead-in-the-water thing we ever built here. All details suppressed to protect the privacy of the donor and the clumsy acolytes who built it. No one came. ħuman 01:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do I remember that? d hominem 10:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Foundation and Rationalwiki
I am here to ask a simple question: Should I give a shit about this? Will it affect me? Or is just a business/tax decision by Trent that is being blown out of proportion? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, no, and yes, the latter. And by one editor. ħuman 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is really meta, and won't effect the day-to-day operating of the site, or your experience on the site. But it is a fairly fundamental shift in the ownership structure of the site. Your interest in it should be a reflection about how much you care about the meta-issues of site management and direction. tmtoulouse 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, given that the only site management decision that has ever affected was was the move to rationalwiki.org (it made me change my bookmarks), no, I don't think I care about who's in control of the site very much at all, since I doubt it's possible to direct the evolution of the community (which is what I do care about) from on high. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Underestimate my power of psychohistory at your own peril. tmtoulouse 19:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- See: The section title. It was intentional. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bah you broke the 4th wall. tmtoulouse 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fourth wall is made for breaking *turns, winks* Wouldn't you agree, readers? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It affects you in that it requires some finance to complete. If you care about the site then you might like to help out Trent who digs deep into his own pockets to keep this site going. Lily Inspirate me. 20:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fourth wall is made for breaking *turns, winks* Wouldn't you agree, readers? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bah you broke the 4th wall. tmtoulouse 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice section title! Clever!--talk 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Underestimate" the power of ownership if you want to vote with your feet instead of with your vote. Mock attempts to allow you to have a say in this thing (especially mainspace) which many of you put a lot of "work" into. When you are all grumpy that they aren't doing it right, maybe I'll be there to remind you what you said when I suggested we could at least ask for some legal protection or make donations on our own terms. ~ Lumenos 11:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I like the way your are getting in an "I told you so" comment before before anything has actually happened which might bear out your somewhat oracular warnings. But we have been warned!--BobSpring is sprung! 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going way out on a limb here and betting that someone from this conversation will complain about how RationalWiki is run, someday. ~ Lumenos 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not doing what right? Paying the bills? Reporting the financials? ħuman 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Naming the bureaucrats or settling their disputes. The Foundation will own rationalwiki.org/.com./.net, not to mention that RationalWikiWiki is on the same server. Will RationalWiki live forever? How do you image it will die? What will happen first, everyone looses interest in RationalWiki or it becomes "corrupt"?
- When Trent becomes busy with real life, dies or whatever, that leaves 5 Trustees. Meetings only require a quorum of a majority (that's 3). Decisions require majority vote (that could be 2 Trustees). Human is already on the temporary board, I'm guessing he is a likely candidate for the permanent board. Trust in him ye RatWikians; nothing to see here. ~ Lumenos 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I like the way your are getting in an "I told you so" comment before before anything has actually happened which might bear out your somewhat oracular warnings. But we have been warned!--BobSpring is sprung! 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- See: The section title. It was intentional. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Underestimate my power of psychohistory at your own peril. tmtoulouse 19:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, given that the only site management decision that has ever affected was was the move to rationalwiki.org (it made me change my bookmarks), no, I don't think I care about who's in control of the site very much at all, since I doubt it's possible to direct the evolution of the community (which is what I do care about) from on high. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is really meta, and won't effect the day-to-day operating of the site, or your experience on the site. But it is a fairly fundamental shift in the ownership structure of the site. Your interest in it should be a reflection about how much you care about the meta-issues of site management and direction. tmtoulouse 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't live in interesting times.
I've been reading the Newgate Calendar off and on over the past week or so. Definitely one to read your kids as a bed time story. However, it makes me sad to conclude we live in an age where criminals just aren't doing interesting crimes any more. Not only are we civilised to the point where there is less crime, and more detection, but that the things criminals do now are just boring. Clearly, the world needs an evil genius to organise the underworld to entertain the law abiding world once again. Any volunteers? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- One of the downsides of democratic government is that there is a tendency for perpetual legislation which only increases the number of crimes, often for petty bureaucratic infringements. Revolutions often throw out the rule book but in the UK we haven't really had a "proper" revolution and have ended up with a millennium's worth of legislation. One of the suggestions on the UK Government's website was to repeal ALL legislation and start again, which quite appealed to me. It won't happen so in the meantime I shall eschew my compulsory weekly archery practice with impunity. Lily Inspirate me. 10:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I saw that one... nicely naive. I think it said something like "replace all laws with 'be nice' and 'do no harm'", yeah, the comments alone on it shredded that one pretty quick. It's not workable in a practical sense or even desirable - I mean, you want to start again on all laws, try to work them out from scratch, and fuck it all up in a new and original way? d hominem 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not true, Jeeves. There are interesting criminals out there.--talk 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
UFO
Another sighting [5]. Any ideas? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- What's this "another"? Where's the first? AceX-102 08:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, another alleged sighting. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a perfectly real sighting of a UFO to me. ONE / TALK 09:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- There was also this spiral over Norway but I wonder if it is related to noctilucent clouds which are allegedly visible this week? Lily Inspirate me. 10:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a perfectly real sighting of a UFO to me. ONE / TALK 09:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, another alleged sighting. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ideas? What about "MSN are morons"? The video is from a Russian rocket launch over Kyrgyzstan on 30 June: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21562.15 Note the date of this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yo8f7fQFO8
- The Norwegian spiral most probably was a failed Russian ballistic missile test. Too lazy to dig links at the moment, you can start from Wikipedia.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)