RationalWiki talk:Wikinode

Wikichristian
They actually seem to be pretty fair- they only seem to discuss religion and don't seem to be raining fire and brimstone, nor did I find a bunch of crackpot ideas regarding why a person might be an atheist. That is from just a five minute glance, though. CorryTalk 14:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Some constructive points
While a nice idea to list wikis I have a few points. I have one or two points. Any other thoughts? It's otherwise a useful and quite well laid out article.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 07:29, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Why is Conservapedia marked under "alternative medicine"? Yes, they may hate "experts" and so on but they're not exactly pushing homeopathy, having CP on twice is quite pointless.
 * And no one thought Wiki4CAM would be a much better example under that heading?
 * WikiChristian as pseudoscience? If it's just pushing faith, then it's not saying it's scientific therefore can't be psuedoscience because it isn't pretending.
 * Why is AtheismWiki "liberal"? Is disbelief now a political position according to RW?
 * Similarly, would we like to put Rational Wiki down as liberal?
 * The links to wikible just go to an ad site. Where are they supposed to go?
 * Naming conventions of articles tend to go for singluar so the title is best off as "wiki" not "wikis", or at least a "list of relevant wikis"
 * Oh bugger. CP is under "alternative medicine" because I missed a correction after multiple copypasting. Obviously it doesn't belong there. Same answer applies to most other misdescriptions. As for the others... I'm just not that good at titling things, or putting stuff in its "correct" tick box. I put Atheism wiki under liberal because I was channeling Andy for a moment. I'll put all this right now I've got a spare moment. Naming conventions - we have Wiki and Wikis - what's to do? Totnesmartin 08:02, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * How about on list that is sortable done columns? 11:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary, secondary, and possibly tertiary focus? 11:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikinode
Should we create a wikinode? Redirect it here?--BobNot Jim 11:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm I kind of like this better as RationalWiki:Wikinode. 11:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem to be serving that function.--BobNot Jim 11:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll move it. 11:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't really much like wp:wikinode. It doesn't tell all about us, and the sites we link to are mostly antithetical to what we do.  Should we polish this turd?  06:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Tin wiki
This is dead as a wiki isn't it?--BobNot Jim 13:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Darn, and I was going to add wikiSynergy... 06:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with including inactive wikis? If it can still be read and edited then it's a wiki. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My point - from some twelve months ago - is that, as a wiki, it's dead. It no longer exists in wiki format. The original idea of wiki nodes (if I remember correctly) was to find alternative homes for articles which did not fit in one wiki but which might reasonably fit in another.  Although on that basis almost none of the wikis in our wiki-node would count. Nevertheless a site which no longer exists as a wiki certainly doesn't count.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)