Talk:Intentional Insights

A quick search indicates that this is self-promotion. Does anyone have any reason to believe this site is relevant in the rationalist sphere. On wikipedia, this would be an AfD immediately. Here, it's on mission, but maybe not important? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What would be a good way of evaluating importance? Gleb Tsipursky (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's your site, right? Why do you think it's important?  We can go from there.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is obvious link spam. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the links can be cleaned up, and it can be left as a stub, I'm in no rush to delete things. I'll probably do so within 24 hours if I can't settle things nicely.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to clean up the links, sorry it was perceived as linkspam - I tried to have lots of links to provide references. My mistake, I guess. More broadly, the reason I think it is important is because the organization is aimed at promoting rational thinking to a broad audience in an engaging way. We've already had quite a bit of success, and have been recently featured on the American Humanist Association's official podcast, the Humanist Hour. Consider that the purpose of RationalWiki is to advance rational thinking, I think Intentional Insights deserves note in the RationalWiki community. Gleb Tsipursky (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] The site appears to be a vehicle for articles by Prof. Tsipursky. I took a peek at the article before it was vaporized, and it looked a lot like a promotional blurb, though nicely written without hyperbolic puffery. In his favor, Prof. Tsipursky seems to have researched his expected audience, and tossed in a goat link.


 * I do not think Aging Hippie acted too precipitously in deleting it. While RationalWiki does not have formal notability criteria, it would be nice to see some third-party mention of it, what WP calls secondary sourcing. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (EC also)I see. Well, that's not going to cut it, exactly.  AgingHippie went ahead and deleted it, and I can't blame him. Just being mentioned by a bigger site is good for you, but it doesn't help us with talking about what you cover or anything. Please consider hanging around and contributing.  Feel free to submit things from your site you think we might like on the WIGOs from time to time. But I don't think your site merits and article yet. Sorry. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I accept that you don't think it deserves an article yet. What would be a good criterion for whether it merits an article? Gleb Tsipursky (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good criterion for an article is getting written about by others. Has anyone other than HH talked about your place? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fuzzy is right, it'd be better if someone else wrote an article about your site. Your version is a bit too "O HAI GUIZ I HAZ A BLAHG!" -- MtD Notorious Sodomite   21:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Richard Dawkins Foundation featured us on its website, and so did Reason Cinema on its website Gleb Tsipursky (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is still to just occasionally submit things you think we'll find relevant here. Not every rationalist blog needs an article. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ikanreed, just to clarify, this is not a rationalist blog, but a new nonprofit that produces blogs, videos, workshop presentations, books, online classes, apps, and other content and products aimed at advancing rationalism :-) I did go ahead as you suggested and posted a blog entry on the WIGO page Gleb Tsipursky (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got an idea for Mr. Tsipursky: Add a bullet point at RationalWiki:Websites or RationalWiki:Blogroll or RationalWiki:Vlogroll, whichever best applies. I'm not sure you've got enough for an article (yet! keep at it), but there's no harm in adding a link to your site. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fuzzycat, thanks for the idea, I will do that Gleb Tsipursky (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on or. If your purpose here is linkspam, then please stop. Just pick one page that truly applies and add your link. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Better yet, lay back and let us decide if your site is the kind of thing we want to promote. Thanks. 22:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be fine letting people decide, but how would this decision making process take place? I'd appreciate clarification on that :-) Gleb Tsipursky (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)