Debate:Inactivity

"This place should be renamed to "Forum that used to be a rational wiki, but is now just another discussion board". 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)"

I actually sort of agree with you on this one. The only article that's been edited in the last three hours is Portugal, which to my knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with rationalism or our mission. I'm aware I've been criticized for mission creep, but at least my articles did something for the wiki's mission (for example, Felidae did assist in refuting creationism, just like shark does now). Frankly, I'm in support of deleting the damn Saloon Bar, WIGO CP, and Hotel Baltimore. Oh, and we do need to reactivate the projects. The Zoology Project has been turned into a joke, when it could actually be doing something. Sometimes I'm so disillusioned I just want to export a few pages and start my own wiki, where maybe this won't happen.

People who regard this place as a playground are a danger here (ie, Human, Ace McWicked). They've driven away most serious editors such as RA, and now hang out almost exclusively on talk pages. This is wrong. This place is RationalWiki, not RationalForum. It uses wiki software, not forum software. Yet mainspace is increasingly neglected and projects are non-existant. The wiki has become a dumping place for articles that wouldn't be accepted anywhere else. Take List of scientificially double-blind studies which have... That's an awful article. It would make a good section, but as an article it completely sucks. Those people linking to us were most likely not so much laughing with us as at us.

-- 15:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's my take on this. Go fuck yourself. You're an internet griefer and a troll. If you haven't already, I'd bet you're teetering awfully close to having burned every single bit of good will you had here. As someone who reads far more than I post, I am personally sick to death of seeing your tactic played out over and over again, day after day, of directing the conversation where'd you'd like to see it go and insisting that everyone pay attention to you, pat you on the head, fight you, whatever. I'm fucking sick of you. 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A troll is someone who posts inflammatory material to cause disruption. That isn't actually me at all.-- 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? Nearly everything you do is to cause disruption, and it usually works. How many times this year have you plunged the wiki into some level of HCM. In truth, you're exactly what I said: a troll and a griefer. And you're a pussy too. You've now several times just crossed out what you wrote after people disagreed with and had strong reactions to your inanity. Please go start your own wiki. 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're wrong, they were laughing with us. Of course we can't just make a bunch of articles and call it a day, but I don't think writing an article about every species is a good idea. First of all, if I want to know something about fish, I go to wikipedia, and there's no point trying to duplicate the same information here, with a single sentence added that it refutes creationism to make it on mission. Second, who's going to write all those articles? Or are we going to end up like Cp's list of ships? And finally, as a very wise man once said: "Less talk, more fight!" Instead of organizing projects, open Special:Wantedpages or Category:Articles needing expansion, click a random link, and type away (yes, this is kind of hypocritical of someone who has never written anything substantive in mainspace, but I'm aware of my limitations...) --  Nx / talk  16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nx, nobody could accuse you of idly wasting time here - productivity isn't all about content. Totnesmartin 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideas of what to do

 * Delete the Saloon Bar and move Hotel Baltimore to userspace or delete it. -- 16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think deleting the Saloon Bar would be a great idea. Also, I propose we introduce a rule that says at least 47% of your contributions must be to article space. --  Nx / talk 16:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very funny. -- 16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Saloon Bar was created so WiGOCP wouldn't get overwhelmed with chat that wasn't about CP. So if we get rid of that, then the chat's just gonna move back.  So I move we delete all WiGO talk pages, just in case. --Kels 16:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Saloon Bar is a good idea just to post stuff that isn't related to WIGO CP. But I don't see the point in Hotel Baltimore. That should go. 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, deleting the Saloon Bar would be a bad idea. But Hotel Baltimore still should go to userspace or be deleted. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Arthropleura / talk / contribs 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree as far as Hotel Baltimore and other Saloon Bar spinoffs go. I never really get into that stuff myself. However, the various WiGOs are one of the big draws to the wiki in the first place, and anything that hobbles those is a Bad Thing in my mind. --Kels 17:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave up on that idea. -- 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should delete all talk pages, and especially those that build our sense of community. Keep in mind, you hundred-legged whining idiot, where the 101 article got "borned".  That's right, on a random community discussion page...  04:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise if Hot l Balitmore went a little far (apologise for my part in it) however it was just a reaction to CUR's want to make it his. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I assume a lot of this is him being butthurt that he couldn't. So yeah. --Kels 04:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ace, the only apology necessary on your part is for not going far enough. There are still a few unstained cm2 at the lovely slut hot l.  04:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Enforcing this
just how would this be enforced? if we delete the saloon bar, the chat will simply relocate to the TWIGO pages, or to somewhere else. the main reason I like RW is its friendliness, there's no other wiki like it AFAIK. You can't just say "no idle chat or else." or else what? Oh and, people are still adding content - there's that 101 evidences thing, and a ton of edits to Common descent, Backward masking, Born again and List of conspiracy theories - all today. Totnesmartin 16:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or else we ban the unproductive editors and save a lot of bandwidth and disk space. Look how successful that was on CP. --  Nx / talk 16:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are NOT doing that here. We are not becoming the things we're fighting against. 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They're joking. -- 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not. I think Nx was. I hope so anyway :) Totnesmartin 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DO IT
Sometimes I'm so disillusioned I just want to export a few pages and start my own wiki, where maybe this won't happen. Then why the fuck don't you? You're always on about how you want things, so go pull a PJR and put your money where your mouth is. Or are you only good at telling people how to run their stuff (in a completely impractical way)? --Kels 16:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would like that very much, but I don't have enough money to start a website of any substanial value. -- 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * try Wikia - they'll start you off if your idea is good. Totnesmartin 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He already has RationalWikiWiki. --  Nx / talk 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, there's a thought. Give him a little subspace in the style of RWW to prove he can walk the walk.  Of course, he'd have to severely limit his time here, which I'm sure we'd all support.  Anyone interested could go give him a hand, whatever they want, anyone who doesn't give a damn could just ignore him.  Much easier.  I doubt he'll even make it to the lofty heights PJR has reached, so it's not like it's a drain on resources. --Kels 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might be surprised... -- 17:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if you had the stones to actually do it. --Kels 17:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if the twerp had the ability. Considering I spent about three hours since Friday afternoon cleaning up his shite. He can't even upload a competent screenshot to document his amazing "Article boom".  04:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As the instigator of this...
I would like to point out that I am not in favour of banning all nonproductive editors, merely that we don't spend all our time on the Saloon Bar, which, while you assert that it directs irrelevant traffic away from WIGO CP, actually makes it worse because it officialises it. Look at 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. Nothing has been added to it since π set it up, despite it being highly relevant to the mission. Oh, wait, I forgot: it's no fun to add to. 16:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, noone's getting paid to do it. Telling people to stop chatting and do some work won't help. Also, it's just been set up, it's a bit too early to declare it a failed project. --  Nx / talk 16:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Real articles, especially debunking articles are work. Sterile 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully by the end of the summer my art will be to a point where I can start contributing a bit in that regard. I'm nowhere near confident enough yet, though, and properly debunking takes a great deal more scientific knowledge than I possess.  So kibitzing is really the best I can do at the moment. --Kels 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been systematically writing articles on pseudophysics (EmDrive and Autodynamics). Oh, and there's Steve Milloy, Expanding Earth, and please excuse me for a moment so I can write the next article on my list. -- 17:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * More like polluting the mainspace with badly-written drivel. "the engine does not violate the laws of physics, even though it does. Several prominent physicians have said that it is impossible" emphasis mine.  And the autodynamics thing is full of typos/gross mispellings, too.  Look, kid, can you at least ask other people to look over your work and clean it up before bragging about it?  04:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that real articles are in progress, but not at a suitable rate. After two hours and an intercom message no one had even copied and pasted Martin's debunkings in. 17:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A volunteer project with a social element will never be ideal, and two hours is not that long. Sterile 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given how much has been added in the last ten minutes, I would have expected more. 17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because you got their attention. If you hadn't it would have sat like that for a few decades. -- 17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that tell you anything about what are and are not effective ways to influence the mob and how PH is regarded here vs. peoples' perceptions of you? 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus fucking Christ PH and centipede-troll. Do your lives really revolve around trying to get people to edit this wiki in a way you approve of???  Hell, I got blocked/banned from CP for "a silly pattern of edits", which is funny.  Are you two seriously suggesting we institute such a rule here?  Why don't you two get a room and gently fondle yourselves?  04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe the stupidity could flow so thickly here

 * FIRST the Saloon Bar is where the 101 article was born.  See how this works?
 * SECOND what intercom messages? I thought I was subscribed to all the groups, I saw nothing.
 * THIRD PH, what is your frickin' problem? People don't edit here the way you want them to?  Sometimes they just "hang out" and enjoy each others' company, and tales of their lives and tribulations and successes?  What exactly is wrong with that?  The mainspace does not have a half-life - it only gets better.  If three days went by with only talk page, WIGOs and saloon bar edits, the site doesn't lose anything.  Please get a life besides playing wiki-cop.  04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Special:Intercom/752, expiration was too short for you to see it. --  Nx / talk 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I forgot all about expiration dates. And I'm such a fan of Hypercube! Thanks...  23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone
I should apologize to Arthur for calling him a pussy and telling him to go fuck himself. That wasn't consistent with our community standards and I regret taking the troll's bait and giving him the satisfaction. I could have communicated exactly the same sentiments without resorting to obscenities. 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm more of a drama queen. I would like to apogalize for once again screwing up beyond belief. -- 17:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, for goat's sake stop calling CUR a damn troll! Seriously, he's just a teenager with abysmal social skills, and I should think lots of us have been there. 17:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "For goat's sake"? Are you two sharing a modem now?  Yeah, most or all of us have been there, but we also kept our teenage mouths shut when we didn't have anything useful to say.  PH, you realize you just yelled at NY for apologizing?  Speaking of social skills...  04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What is RationalWiki?
There is a couple great articles on meatball wiki, which unfortunately seems to be down, that talk about the concepts of a community oriented project, versus a content oriented project. Wikipedia is the classic example of a content oriented project. Where the goal of the infrastructure and the site is to facilitate the creation of content pages and only content pages. A community oriented project, are things like forums where there is on ultimate goal of creating content to present writ the public but only about conversing with like minded people.

One of the things you have to realize is that we are not, and have never tried to be an encyclopedia, and certainly never wanted to be wikipedia. When this site moved from a private wiki to RationalWiki 2.0 the question was what niche could we fill as a site that didn't just make us "another wiki"? The first was our strong point of view, pro-science, pro-rationalism, and our mission of addressing a subset of topics. The second niche, if you go and read the rationalwiki article, was to provide a place for a community to develop. Substantial changes and additions have been made to the MediaWiki software in order to facilitate and develop the community aspects of our site. We have taken ideas from social bookmarking, forums, and blogs, and found ways to integrate the popular elements of each of these Web 2.0 icons into our wiki. It has worked out well. The community of RationalWiki is our strongest element. Its development was part of the original intent of the site.

Some people may be unhappy with the development of the second part of the site, the actual content portion of articles. This actually goes through spurts of activity and inactivity. The other issue is that there is less and less to really write about, when we first started I could sit down and write an article about anything and anybody I wanted. Now often when I see something I want to write about I come here and find an article all ready present. Sure there is tons more to write about, there always is, but we are more "saturated" with the basic topics than we were 2 years ago. The other issue is you don't kill back one of the more successful aspects of the site in order to try and push people into another aspect. If we want more article creation, changes, developments, then we need to find better ways of facilitating that not by cutting back the site till there is no options but what we "want" to see.

As per the list of double-blind studies article complained about above, I rather like it, though the joke got out of hand at one point when we had 20 such articles. But as the person that saw every page linking to us during that traffic spike, and read all the comments, there was no one "laughing at us" they were either "laughing with us" or "arguing for homeopathy."

The tl;dr version: The community aspect of our wiki was purposefully created, with much effort, don't ruin it because you want to see another aspect of the wiki improve. tmtoulouse 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the community aspect; it's the main reason I come. I'm merely concerned that the mission aspect is being abandoned. I like us discussing rationalism, but things like the Hot l Baltimore were going too far. 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself, PH. Is it your intent to police what aspects of the community meet your standards and what aspects don't?  Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.  Hot l Baltimore, and our parties for the election and anniversary are part and parcel of what this site has always been.  You don't like those pages?  Unwatch them and work/play elsewhere?  And I don't know where you've been, but the "mission" is still being attended to on a regular basis.   04:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As the person who started the Saloon Bar I must say that I am pleased with how it's turned out. I think most of us here have something in common along rational pro-science lines. Discussions frequently get started in the bar and if they generate a lot of interest get moved into their own space. Summer tends to be a quieter time with people on vacation so things don't always proceed so fast at this time of year, but if you can come up with an interesting project then people often tend to pile into it as that is where the action is. When editors decide to leave it is often because they wanted to make RW conform to their own ideas and got too precious when the majority didn't fall in step behind them. The saloon has been a place where people reveal more about themselves in the way of interests, tastes and thoughts in a more relaxed way than posting on their user page. I also believe that it is a platform from which we can move onto other things, sometimes it just needs the ideas to be hammered out first in an informal setting. 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Throwing random stones
"People who regard this place as a playground are a danger here (ie, Human, Ace McWicked). They've driven away most serious editors such as RA, and now hang out almost exclusively on talk pages."

WTF? I mean, really? RA is here, in spades lately, under a pseudonym. You make it sound like I never edited a useful mainspace article, you malignant, self-centered twerp. Care to point out exactly what Ace or I might be doing to be a "danger"? Care to analyze my edit history before spouting off at your juvenile frothing mouth? 04:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I read that hours ago, and have been wanting to mention it but didnt really know how. I dont think "I am a danger", I may be a little wild - but a danger?. And I think I have written more "on-mission" articles than CUR (not that I think its a competition or anything) and Human, well, he is one of our best and longest standing editors Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that most of those editors are the ones that have been here the longest. 05:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking back through the archives I can't help noticing we keep having the argument on what CUR would like RationalWiki to be rather than what it is. We had the Vabel which would be the sites "go-to guys" that would involve CUR or he would be the head of and they were expected to conform to his talking with v thing. Then the zoology project that CUR was kicking people in and out of, that was suppose to create article on animals, despite the off mission content involved. Recently we had his restaurant, which he threatened to kick people out if they didn't leave comments he liked. I can't help but notice something, it always involves CUR's ideas on how we should behave and him having some additional authority.  05:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with him having any authority in any way. Not even sysop, honestly.  He's not mature enough to handle something as boneheaded as blocking and moving ability.  Maybe in a year or so I'll change my mind, if he actually learns to think before he does things, rather than having to backpedal and either delete or strike his embarrassments. --Kels 05:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "'RA is here, in spades lately, under a pseudonym.' —Human"
 * Really? Do tell me who is supposed to be me, so I can bash you on the head for thinking they're me.  I left, and I didn't pull a SusanG or a TK.  I came back for this one night because Phantom Hoover asked me to contribute to this page.  I came, saw it was business as usual, took the opportunity to dump an old side project of mine on the site, and won't be back after this.  Now (again), goodbye.   05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, please forgive me if I was mistaken. And please, don't lump Susan's rejoining in any way with TK's shenanigans.  I just thought you were lowering the drama level by sticking around with a history-free user name.  Sorry if I was wrong. PS, is the accusation correct, though?  Was it "People who regard this place as a playground" that "[drove] [you] away"? Just curious.  I was under the impression that you had something better to do with your spare time.  06:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's okay—all is forgiven. Regarding why I left, that is a partial reason for it, but I mostly left because I simply felt it was time to move on.   06:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry about casting les aspersions. I was obviously mistaken. And I hope your time spent after "moving on" has been fruitful.  07:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here. This is a volunteer project and people are totally free to contribute as much or as little as they like. If people want to write about CP, chat in the saloon bar or make jokes then that's what they will do.  Personally I'd prefer to see more stuff on pseudoscience - but if that's what I want then really it's my responsibility to set an example by doing it myself.  Complaining that other people don't do what I think they should be doing is pretty useless.--Bobbing up 06:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the playground comment I agree with Bob, it is a volunteer project and things to get done but we all have things we expect out of it and very few of us cause problems with our own habits. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 06:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially considering that your habits are a cause of sitewide amusement (mine, just sitewide trauma, but that's another story, eh?) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sure not everyone is amused everytime. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 07:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor reality check. Just for amusement, I checked the plaintiff (PH)'s contribs. The last 50 mainspace edits date back to 24 March. I tracked down mine, and even upping the count to 1000 only got me back to 8 April. Just sayin' is all. Someone's trippin' on off-wiki Kool-Aid methinks. And I don't mean PH so much as CUR (250 gets him back to 5 April) so quit your damn bitching. 07:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding incentives
Phantom pinged me for my two cents, so here it is: no articles get made because there is no incentive to.

Pop quiz: What reward to you get if you work quietly in the background of Conservapedia, writing substantive yet non-controversial articles? Answer: nothing. Hence, few such people exist, and few such articles are written.

What reward do you get if you work quietly in the background of RationalWiki, writing substantive psuedoscience-related articles? Answer: nothing. Hence, few such people exist, and few such articles are written.

What reward do you get if you work quietly in the background of Wikipedia, being uber-productive? Answer: A barn star, or even sysopship. Hence, many such people exist over there, and much work is done.

And finally: What reward do you get if you are loud, obnoxious, cruel, and kowtow shamelessly to Dear Leader on Conservapedia? Answer: Sysopship. Hence, the site is full of loud, obnoxious, and cruel people whom view Schlafly as incapable of being wrong.

Do you see my point here? If Conservapedia can take a decent idea (an encyclopedia for conservatives) and, with the wrong incentives, turn it into a cesspool of heartless and oblivious bastards, then imagine what we can accomplish with RationalWiki with good incentives.

Now, I know it's too late to change our sysopping policy to so we can use sysophood as a reward being productive—the ease with which people are sysopped here has done wonders to alleviate the typical class-warfare of "sysops... and everybody else" culture that plagues other wikis. But we can do other things to reward high productivity here.

So my suggestion for a good incentive to encourage people to be productive is as follows: each month at the Saloon bar, everyone get together and pick an unusually productive (in non-CP related matters, of course) member, and just write "Thank you" to them in gigantic letters. It's simple, easy, and has none of the self-important stuffiness inherent to other wikis' awards.

07:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we form a committee? By the way, I think you are trying to present a solution to a non-existent problem.  I see plenty of back-slapping here - virtually every day - over mainspace activities (most of the site is on my watchlist...).  Better idea... the mob at RWW come over and give us medals every month!  Not to denigrate your analysis, but the reward for mainspace "work" here is mostly in the doing, not the accolades, if you know what I mean.  Also check the stats I pulled up regarding the principal complainers above.  Does PH not edit the mainspace much because they don't get barnstars or virtual 5 pounds of cheddar?  You used to edit it prolifically, what was your "reward"?  Enjoying it?  Being proud of the general result?  Something else?  07:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, "I know it's too late to change our sysopping policy" - that you almost single-handedly made what it is now. Although that was probably the inevitable outcome of the basis for the site and the way it is run. I offered someone a barnstar the other day and they got embarrassed.  Although, someone was giving away love-kittens today (yesterday).  07:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We should just have a single person who does this reward, I believe. Inevitably, someone will disagree with that person and want someone else rewarded, and that should also be allowed.  This way there is no nonsense committee and allows our customary way of doing things, while still providing incentive.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 07:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should appoint (or find) an "unusually productive editor" (why do they have to be unusual?) award maker! I would volunteer but I'm too busy making unusual edits.  07:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That's a good idea—why doesn't everyone take turns, progressing through active members alphabetically or by time of joining? No self-nominations, of course.   07:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a little lame, but if someone volunteers to figure that nonsense out, I guess it makes sense. I suggest we call the award the Holy Crap, as in Holy crap you did a lot!--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 07:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds a wee bit "namby pamby" to me. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 08:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ace. I think people that need rewards, actually need to harden the fuck up. 08:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you need rewards just use your starbucks "buy 10 coffee's, get one free card" or some vouchers when hiring a DVD. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 08:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be something in the idea though none of the suggestions above have really fired my imagination. I also agree that the idea of PH raising RA from the dead to suggest that our sysopping process may have been a little over generous is a little ironic.--Bobbing up 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I get positive reinforcement, but enforcing productivity in a volunteer project, particularly in northern hemisphere summer, just isn't going to work. RW started in part so that we could talk to each other because we couldn't at CP. There is a social element here. That's just the way it is. Sterile 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. RW is flourishing, while CP is a mausoleum. The reason is that RW has a community feel, rather than a forced labour camp feel. If people want to work on something, then they work, if people want to talk then they can do that too. -- 12:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(I always miss the good stuff) It seems to me that if you're looking for a site with incentives to make content, one already exists (wikipedia). Why would we want to be another (smaller) wikipedia? 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

my 2¢
For reasons beyond my control, I am reduced to the smartphone & have only been able to use it for the last hour . I am apalled at this 'debate'. RW is basically a community - not a project. We're united largely by a sense of fun and cameraderie - not by a desire to produce a great work, although if one should happen as a byproduct, I'm sure that none of us would be disappointed. We have a double handful of pages that we should be proud of, another handful or two that we can't be ashamed of and a load that are just playing. We're not under any directive for productivity and any attempt to institute any such will be met with general derision. People like Human and Ace are the lifeblod of RW. No-one's stopping anyone creating new on-mission articles if they want to, but as has been said above, many of my favourite topics have been covered already or I don't have the specific knowledge required. Oh, and I'm knackered.

If anyone thinks they can do better then might I suggest that they can either start adding content themselves or copy whatever they want to another site AND STOP MOANING. 

Oh & TK's old crone not me.

02:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We love you Susan, and we always have. Isn't that what we got from this place?  Friends all over the globe, people with a certain je ne sais quoi.  People we call "friends". Friends.  05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good Susan.--Bobbing up 08:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're as wise as you are awesome Susan. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 10:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly Susan. I do not understand the people who take RW so seriously.  I never thought of us as a specialist Wikipedia.  I mean, how many of you come here to check out a topic?  You don't.  You go to Wikipedia.  You come here for a laugh.  You might want to see what the latest insanity is at CP or aSK or any number of places that fit into our commentary mission.  You only look at an article here to get our take, which usually a particular brand of satire.  In the end, just have fun.   11:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A N00b's Perspective
I only joined a couple of weeks ago and the thing that really struck me at first was just how much fun there is here. There are some very useful articles: the essays taking apart CP and blog rants piece by piece are fantastic, and there are several other pages well worth a read. It's true that most of the focus seems to be on talk pages but from my perspective that's mainly because so much of what happens in the weird world of CP requires a "WTF! OMG!" response and this is a good place to engage in such responses with like-minded people.

Once I've learned a bit more about how the site works and spent more time finding out what needs to be written, I'm sure I'll start editing a bit more seriously. I don't require somebody posting meaningless rewards on my talk page to motivate me. Having somebody add "That's a good article mate" would be far more rewarding. Until that point I'll continue to engage in the fun, because it was that which brought me here in the first place. Rpeh 07:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good comment mate. Thanks :-) --Bobbing up 08:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's certainly true, it takes some time to figure it all out and then you're confident enough to click "random page" and do some cleaning or expanding. The only issue is that you're less likely to get "good article mate" and more likely to get someone (I won't mention names) come along and slap a "mission" template on it. Which is a shame, people have varied interests and may not want to write exclusively on American-centric politics or extremely obscure homeopaths. If you want to encourage mainspace productivity, I'd say the first step is to be much more open about what we accept in the mainspace and find a way of getting newer users more comfortable with adding content rather than making them feel constantly watched and checked by older gits saying that their spelling and writing is atrocious. 10:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And exactly how do we do that? -- 16:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Example of what Armondikov might be talking about -- 16:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather suspect Armondikov might be able to provide her own examples, should she wish to.  21:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, it's not like there is endless fun to go around. I'm sick of n00bs like Rpeh coming around and taking more than they're fare shake. Rpeh, I've been monitoring your contributions and I feel my suspicions will be confirmed next time larron does his analyses: you're taking more fun from the community than your giving back. Fuck off. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugger me, when did this turn into 4Chan? 14:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As soon as I became as board as they are. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I promise to be a miserable bastard for a few days, can I stay? Rpeh 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends. How miserable can you be? :-) But I guess that you've picked up on our sometimes rather obscure sense of humour.--Bobbing up 16:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I can be pretty miserable - especially given that a total wanker called A***** C******* is coming back from his holidays tomorrow, there's a tube strike so those of use who usually take the train early will be deluged by loud wankers on mobiles telling each other when they'll be in, and that the strike is for another bunch of wankers who earn 40K pa for saying "Please mind the doors" when they can be bothered.
 * My country has just elected two racist bastards to the European parliament in addition to the first three racist bastard county councillors (well - officially racist anyway), whilst even more people who can only breath through their mouths voted for UKIP because they don't understand modern economics and honestly think that singing "Rule Britannia!" in a loud but somewhat indistinct voice is a realistic alternative to a pan-European economic policy. At the next general election we're likely to replace an incompetent lying wanker (who himself replaces an incompetent lying wanker) with another incompetent lying wanker.
 * And to cap it all off I haven't had a good fuck in longer than I care to remember.
 * Miserable enough for you? :-p Rpeh 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

From a nooB retired person
Why cannot you redo the sysopship thing?

(Permanently?) de-op all those accounts that have been inactive for (oh, say) 2months.

De op all non-productive accounts, accounts that only use the talk pages (and only then those talk pages that don't actually result in on-mission content creation/addition and/or CP related lulz producing "suggestions").

Do not "grandfather" any accounts that are inactive...don't let dead wood retain rights that only might be used, maybe, perhaps, if PalMD ever finds the time to come in a do something. As a retired account I would expect to hand in mine mop and bucket too.

The "we're a moborcracy and everyone gets sysopships" was great to build and learn people how to be responsible wikians with powerz but right now it's getting in the way of going to the next step and allowing the site to grow.

This is exactly one of the orthodoxies Shirky warns about.

@neveruse, you were not the cause merely the trigger, for which I am greatly thankful.

CЯacke ® 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some sympathy with your POV Cracker and feel mild outrage that someone who handed out sysopships and bureaucracies like a paedo with a bag of candy at a kiddies' birthday party should have the nerve to criticise our sysopping policy. However, how would we reverse the step? It would normally be done through some mob process but how many of the turkeys who have the powers would vote for Christmas? 18:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think cracker that you've missed the important first step; showing that it's sysopship that is causing all these problems. (Actually, you even missed the step before that, showing that it's a problem at all).   18:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the mass sysoppings have led to a single major problem - the deletion of the WIGO CP talk page. It's also led to a meme possibly unique on the internet - block wars, which are good fun if played properly. I don't see a problem with giving harmless editors the ability to do what can be easily corrected. The only potential problem is an old account being hacked for malicious purposes (this has happened recently at Livejournal). But, unless they hack TMT, we're pretty safe I think.Totnesmartin 18:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the mass sysoppings have led to a single major problem - the deletion of the WIGO CP talk page. While that is true, I don't think that ist the problem that is being addressed.  And I believe NX found a relatively simply way to fix that problem, too.   19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) If you are talking about the time TheoryOfPractice vaporized it, he would probably have been a sysop even under much more stringent sysop criteria than we have now. 19:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was Jorge, but he deleted Wigo CP rather than the talk page - anyway that's what I meant. Totnesmartin 19:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I would see no problem in depowering inactive sysops I'm at a loss to see what it would actually achieve. I mean if they  are inactive then they are self-evidently not abusing these powers - so what exactly is the problem which is being solved?  It is something for community standards anyway.--Bobbing up 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting large pages is not a problem any more (I have a script and gadget that can restore them with a single click, also this might have been fixed with the upgrade, I didn't try obviously). Anyway, if you think giving everyone sysopship takes away incentive to be productive or that it's not safe, we can create a "sysop-light" usergroup that can, for example, only vandal bin, not block, and only delete pages with less than x edits, then give that to everyone. --  Nx / talk 21:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would create the opposite problem, then. Too many people without power, versus a small group with power.  Didn't some other website try that out, with less than stellar success?   21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What about bureaucrats then? Not everyone's a bureaucrat --  Nx / talk 21:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Touche; though I stand by my original point.  21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(UI) I was thinking about this the other day, for other reasons, and there is one "actual", if minor, problem with having everyone be a sysop. That is that if a wiki-savvy person comes here and has a question, looking for a "sysop" is the natural thing to do. Of course, odds are they'll find someone inactive, or fairly new to wikis, which won't help them much. Not that this is an argument to change what we do, after all, there is a nice little link at the top left that says "help". Also, the wiki-savvy might just ask someone who appears to be actively editing at the time. 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would a non-wiki-savy person look for a sysop? This was really the first wiki I edited, and I didn't know who was in charge at first (or even to look for a sysop, I had no idea what one was). Ignore reading comprehension fail.   19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @Human: Since we're all RC whores here I don't think that's a problem. --  Nx / talk 21:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ECs) If somebody new has a general question for a sysop, there are plenty of places they could ask it (Saloon bar, Tech support, Main Page talk) & get at least a couple of answers from experiences RWikiers.
 * Re desysoping inactive members, what the fuck? Since when does RW impose demands on sysops' level of attendance or involvement? We see those kind of desysopings happen at CP a lot & invariably criticise it; why would we start doing the same thing here?  It's actually nice when old faces turn up again after a long break.  Why insult them by removing their rights?   21:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Human makes a point about a potential problem, but as it has never actually happened (at least to my knowledge) in the entire history of RW it's probably not a big issue. And I'm still confused about the issue which this change would address.--Bobbing up 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh
I think my point was lost. My point was to undo most of the sysopships in order to make sysopping a goal to be achieved by good edits and productive workings, (as well as not being a dick). Besides barnstars (who gives a fuck?), admin dooties is one way to add incentive to do Good Things.

But like I said, I'm retired from here and never did get into "policy" crap when I was here. CЯacke ® 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, what problem are you addressing by making most people non-sysops, and why are people being sysops causing that problem.  21:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not just let people edit RW as much as they want to & in the ways they want to (subject to mission guidelines, etc.), without having to goad them into "productive activities" with ephemeral rewards. Sysopship is only really a genuine goal to strive for if it entails actual authority, & that would mean completely changing the fairly unique way RW works.  If it ain't broke (& it doesn't appear to be), don't fix it.   21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is SPARTA!
Seriously, one of the reasons I like this site so much is that it resembles a Spartan philosophy with regards to power and position. Among the 10,000 Spartan citizen, everyone was essentially equal. That is how this site is. Just about everyone is treated equally and has an equal voice. I've never received a "STFU NOOB!" when voting on site policy, nor does anyone really. Take that away and you have wikipedia light; if we wanted wikipedia, we'd just edit there. I don't see this as a problem needed an answer; it looks more like an answer seeking a problem. 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem anyway?
I have been fairly quiet on this debate (despite CUR calling me a "danger" to the site - funny when you consider how much trouble he has caused compared to how much I have caused) but I fail to see what the issue is. RW seems to be running fine and happy. People come for shit'n'giggles, for a chat with like-minded individuals or to edit articles. It's each person perogative. The people that end up taking RW (and themselves on RW) seriously inevitably end up leaving, like RA did. Are we gonna make RW rule crazy? No, not likely. Are we going to have specific guidelines of who should edit what and how often? No, not likely. Are people going to be warned if the dont edit enough and talk too much? No, not likely. Do people get mad if they are out there editing while others chat? Probably but thats their problem. So what is the issue then? Incentives? Hey, if I find a well written new article or a good piece of snark I'll often compliment the editor that added it. But if that editor gets all angry because no-one has thanked them, well, tough freaking break, you're in the wrong place. However, invariably, people DO get thanked regardless of the lack of any RW-wide "Well done! High Fives All Round" system. So whats the problem? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still trying to figure out what this is supposed to fix. As for making sysop a "goal" I think our notes somewhere state that "a sysop is not a better type of user".
 * And I still think that it's weird that (after PH apparently prodded RA back into virtual activity) RA complains about the policy which he, more than anyone else, created.--Bobbing up 10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

99/1
I do want to remind people of the 99/1 rule, which has been in effect since about 1993 here. It states quite emphatically that an editor must make 99 edits that are wandalism, or at least talk page edits, in order to earn the right to make one mainspace article edit. It's really for the best of the wiki, and I don't know why there is so much confusion over it. 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and the spirit of the rule clearly states that it does not apply to sysops. If you don't believe me, it is written on the inside of my eyelids in colors that only I can decipher. Sprocket J Cogswell 00:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rationalwiki Reform Society
Some of the problems mentioned here are being addressed at Debate:The Rationalwiki Reform Society, if anyone is interested. MarcusCicero 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I painted your red link blue. 00:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)