Debate:Boycott time

23rd July 2008

Due to a general lack of lulz at CP, the server problems and to wean ourselves off CP due to it's possible upcoming demise, it is hereby proposed that RationalWiki should Boycott Consevapedia for a week.

Thoughts?

--Damo2353 08:59, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Support
Due to general lack of activity and lulz over there, I say we should drive their page hits to the absolute minimum, which I suspect will be purely CP sysops, parodists and vandals. Bondurant 09:03, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Well I made the page so so for the reasons above. I especially highlight the idea that we should find something else to watch as I wonder how much longer CP will operate.  Creationwiki is a possibility perhaps?--Damo2353 09:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

You can try this Christian website. I don’t think they’ll come anywhere near Conservapedia on the silliness scale. ''” God approved of slavery in this instance only because it was His hope that those who became slaves of the Israelites from foreign nations might "be saved." Even though they would lose their earthly freedom, God hoped that they would gain eternal freedom by coming to know Him, which is far more important. ”''
 * I don't want to watch that site. They all seem like nice people debating which version of the bible is correct etc.  Misguided perhaps but nice enough.  --Damo2353 14:30, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm up for it. PFoster 13:11, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I am against bothering them, they don't seem as phobic of others, and they do have a decent article on Atheism, and they don't have 40sumpin articles on Liberals and "____". As for boycotting CP, I agree with the idea of letting CP fester for a week, however.

I'd say it's a good idea - but with the provision that if something exciting happens with the science blogs and "PNAS" then we switch it off.--Bobbing up 13:24, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I always support all CP boycott proposals ;) Although, per Susan below, I'm on an informal involuntary one anyway due to 9/10 of page requests not working, so I stop bothering.  ħ uman  14:42, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Abstain
It's all a bit of a non-issue at the moment as nothing is happening and few people can get on for any length of time. So it already is a de facto boycott. Genghis   09:42, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd vote "yea", but Assfly is quite responsive to a formal letter to PNAS (does anyone else read that as "P-nas" in their head every time they see it? Or is that horribly immature of me?) and this is something we wouldn't want to miss. We may actually see movement on this in the next few days. Perhaps we should hold off. DickTurpis 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)


 * What's this about "a formal letter to PNAS"? Where are they discussing it on CP? I looked at their Lenski-related pages (at a glance; some of their ranting and back-and-forths are ridiculously long) and didn't find anything. If they're about to get pwned again, we definitely don't want to miss it. If nothing's going to happen, though, I'd rather just boycott and let them wither away. OneForLogic 10:30, 22 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Given the current low workload over there (combination of holidays and the site falling over every 2 seconds), I'd suggest holding off for now. At current levels, a boycott would probably only expose our socks over there. Maybe wait until the homskollars are... er... back home and if anything develops with PNAS - would be criminal to miss that pwnage. --PsygremlinWhut? 10:37, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I have a feeling that the PNAS thing will take some time to develop; I would be very surprised if they reply within a week. That draft letter is funny as hell though, and the blogosphere will make CP traffic explode again if PNAS responds. And then it will be some time until a boycott is practical. Anyways, I'm not trying to lobby people into supporting the boycott - it's not like this is the American Congress after all. Bondurant 10:46, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm on a (involuntary) boycott now - can't raise CP at all. 14:02, 22 July 2008 (EDT)