Forum:EvoWiki ports

The following pages are not, in their current state, proper RationalWiki articles. What do we propose to do with them?



For my part I think we should incorporate them all into a set of broader articles, or into existing articles. For instance, the one about the Pope's statement should be incorporated into the article on John Paul II. 20:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob suggested an article cataloging dumb questions apologists and/or creationists think are clever. Scarlet A.pngtheist 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of them could go into one of those side-by-side or essay thingamajigs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one big counter-apologetics article? But it also raises the question of whether the wiki is openly and specifically atheistic. In my personal opinion that would be a Good Thing but in the past there have been objections to such a position. We are now pretty close to that situation but engaging in explicit counter-apologetics would put us clearly in the atheist camp.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Destroy them all! Aceace 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When you look at them carefully, they actually have lots of useful stuff. Many, like the one on the pope's statment, should stand on their own.  Others can be integrated.  But it seems to me, given how much stuff we have around here that we want to improve on, the best answer is just leave them copper articles, and try to get people to work with each one individually, rather than looking at them as some kind of collective.  And, don't make any decision right now, just cause 'gosh, they appeared on my recent changes - fix and fix now.- Heh.  Just my two cents, having worked a bit on the pope's statement. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   I smell roasted chestnuts.  droollllllll. 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, we aren't explicitly atheistic? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At one time - way back when - this was a big issue. But if we are now explicitly atheistic I'm cool with that.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorta-kinda. There are a few Christian, Pagan, Jewish, and Muslim editors. Тy talk 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I mean we already have loads of counter-apologetics articles. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We do, but so what? Unless there is a space issue, or they are actual duplicate arguments, it's good to have tons.  I don't know if you all realize how often we cite to you when arguing idiots on facebook, or steal from you in letters to the School Boards.  :-)  the more arguments, the more helpful for those of us who aren't as fast on our feet as others.  :P  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   I smell roasted chestnuts.  droollllllll. 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean they were useless, I meant we already have loads of explicitly atheist articles so I didn't see what the problem was with having more. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They could all go into a creationist claims article or creationist arguments. Or should I say fundamentalist claims. 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Already been done. I linked them as soon as they appeared.  They really are good standalones, if we bother to edit them, cause these are common and constant arguments made oby creationists.  And they can be developed and really challenged in useful articles that can actually be draws for people like myself, when I"m saying "shit, the creationists at my school district are bringing up the Pope".  (and they do, sighs.  so much for progressive Colorado).[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   I smell roasted chestnuts.  droollllllll. 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dang it, Neb, I got blocked and lost my material. :-=)    I was saying that I have added the pages to "creationist claims", which makes a good link home for them, to be developed on their own.  That way, they won't get lost if we don't do anything in haste.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   I smell roasted chestnuts.  droollllllll. 20:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've always hated content written for any other site being cut & pasted verbatim as a mainspace article at RW. It just doesn't work well & takes a lot of work to make it RW-friendly. In these cases, I think a lot of it already (better) covered in other RW articles. I don't think that EvoWiki has to be assimilated into RW just because it's been acquired by the Foundation. Better to keep Evo as a separate entity, & borrow the odd phrase, paragraph, point or citation here & there for existing or new RW articles, rather than porting a load of pages that really don't fit well into our mainspace structure & style. 01:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The word salad titles are pretty annoying as well. Тy talk 02:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These last two posts encapsulate my view perfectly. 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I TAKE IT ALL BACK, YOU ALL ARE VERY VERY RIGHT Ok, having worked on the John paul thing, you all are right and I'm just flat out wrong. editing to fit into RW style is so fucking much more work than just rewriting the damn thing from scratch. you all tried to tell me, but did i listen? course not.....Godot  Moi j'dis, laisse beton 18:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe that article was shit. Some of EvoWiki is written in a kind of snooty academic tone despite the style and quality of the prose suggesting another approach.
 * So some of it is shit and some of it s marvelous. Most of it is soso. I made some suggestions on how to prioritze the project in June. 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki and EvoWiki
Wait, what? The RationalWiki Foundation owns EvoWiki now? When did this happen, and where was it mentioned? 02:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Last November? Тy talk 02:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Was it trumpeted across the site, with banners and fanfares? When the Foundation acquires something, I expect banners and fanfares.  Where was my confetti, and Very Important Memo?   02:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it was. Тy talk 02:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the RationalWiki Foundation acquired another, different, site, and didn't mention it outside of a couple talk pages? Great job communicating, Board Members.  It's not like there's a community here or anything.   02:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously at a loss. I didn't even know that.--Dumpling (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was certainly aware of it. There was other talk as well about what to do about it, to fish-bowl it or integrate it or whatever. We just never got very far with it - but it was hardly a secret.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was communicated to people active at the time in the usual places. Can't think what else you'd expect to see as the RWF is supposed to be quiet and in the background. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 08:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Communicated to people active... in the usual places"—I expected as much. What most irritates me is that I clearly wasn't paying attention enough back then.  Short of spamming everybody's talk page, I don't see any way of communicating such outside the "usual places."   09:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Well, my excuse is...I joined this May. OH WELL. I shall have to pay more attention then. Well...I go on the RW IRC sometimes...then there's the FB group. Meh.--Dumpling (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been mentioned multiple times on the wiki including articles, talk pages and the saloon bar.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And Foundation meeting minutes no doubt. -  π    silverbrain.png 10:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also on the top of the Evo wiki page. for what it's worth....[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   Moi j'dis, laisse beton 20:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC) "EvoWiki is now a project of the RationalWiki Foundation, to learn how to participate please visit the EvoWiki project page."

It was nice not getting any interest in this after I sent out an intercom in June. But yeah, it hasn't been a secret, RA. 14:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Working on EvoWiki ports
I’ve been warned that if I work on them my work may be deleted later but unless I work on them the articles won’t become good enough so the rest of the mob want to keep them. It’s a bit like a Catch-22 situation. I&#39;m not Jesus (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ^^Sure you put this post in the right section?  19:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not just these articles IMJ, that's all of them. I've had several articles I've fought for - die.  I've had tons and tons of major changes be reverted cause it wasn't teh right tone, or didn't convey the right facts, or someone just didn't like it.  It's the nature of a wiki.  Write cause you want to.  If others don't like it, or revert it, then you arn't harmed, cause you learned something.  And fight for what you think is right, but do so "Rationally"! grins.  That is, if you really think your idea is worth it, explain it on the talk page, listen to teh criticisms and try to change it.  I think the times I've really cared, people either said "yeah, that does make sense" or "eh, ok, i don't care enough to battle with you", and i got what I wanted.  But you have to listen to what everyone is saying, and why they don't like it "as is", on any article.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font color="Blue">Godot   Moi j'dis, laisse beton 19:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As WfG said further up, it's more work to try to adapt these EvoWiki pages to RW than it is to create new content for RW. Also, I don't think these article subjects are distinct enough to be individual articles; mostly they're already covered on RW.  The EvoWiki claim/source/responses structure doesn't work well in RW, & when you take it out there's really only a couple of sentences or so in each of these that might be worth salvaging.   19:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will still pound the lectern that they are distinct enough for separate articles, at least in the frame work of a really good "how to argue against creationism" set of pieces. Cause i'd still really love that to be one of the primary focuses of our "debunking" work. Ie., not just debunking for the Choir, but easy to understand, argument by argument "copy this and take it into the classroom with you" articles.  "dream on, dream on"....[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   Moi j'dis, laisse beton 19:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A good idea, but I'm not sure that a string of separate mainspace articles would be the best way to present it. Something like an Evolution FAQ (or Creationism FAQ), as counterpart to our Atheism FAQ page, might work.    20:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An Evolution FAQ is a excellent idea.  00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bring it back to life
As it seems to be difficult to integrate these articles into RW - what about bringing Evowiki back to life? I have the impression that it used to be quite active.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would confuse things having two separate wikis. Perhaps import it with its own name space? 15:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would confuse things, if anything the separate namespace would confuse things. It's more a case of convenience when asking yourself which site to check, and what needs to go where, and logging in (although we can, in principle, set up joint accounts that I'm aware of). Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>narchist 15:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So evo wiki will no longer be maintained? [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   Moi j'dis, laisse beton 15:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Evowiki stopped being maintained a long time ago. If I remember correctly it went off-line but when it came back it couldn't get going again. In order to to stop it disappearing completely we took it under our wing with the kinda vague intention of incorporating its content and as far as I am aware it is not being edited.  However it seems to me that incorporation of its content will prove difficult, excessively time-consuming and contentious.
 * What I'm suggesting is that we bring it back to life as is editing and all. But I'm not sure of the technical implications or whether it will attract contributors. As its POV and article construction seems to be substantially different to our our own I don't think it would fit well in an RW namespace.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can it stay its own wiki? not just a different "name space" but like a linked wiki.  Editors who edit here, encouraged to edit there and vice versa?  (If this is a dumb question, sorry.  I kinda live in a world where I "turn on my computer' and "start work" and the rest is some magic by elves I don't see).  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   Moi j'dis, laisse beton 18:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what I am suggesting.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * EvoWiki is here. According to RationalWiki:EvoWiki, it looks like you need to be a "Curator" to edit it (by asking TMT).  I guess editing has to be restricted unless anyone is going to keep a close eye on it, to stop it being bombed out by spambots, as usually happens to semi-abandoned wikis.  07:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to, say, only allow sysops/autoconfirms here to edit there? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 08:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You could certainly set it up that people have to personally request the right to edit. For example by email to a designated person or perhaps by making a request on a page here. If it gained sufficient critical mass it could be opened up again to open editing.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's already the case Bob. They should request it at RationalWiki talk:EvoWiki.  18:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)