Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Conservapedia talk:Best of the Public

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This Conservapedia related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



The Conservapedia page in question is completely insane and could be rebutted, but this page fails in a couple ways. The claim in the first paragraph is that Perelman had never been offered a permanent job. The "rebuttal" shows that he held two one-year positions in the U.S.. OK? I don't know if the CP claim is true, but the supposed rebuttal is irrelevant. As for the second paragraph, it is true that the citation isn't given, but the claim is in fact a more or less accurate characterization of accusations against Shing-tung Yau made in a New Yorker article (it was called "Manifold Destiny" or something like that). Yau threatened to sue but I don't think anything came of it. So I don't think it will be possible to rebut this, as it's basically accurate. The last paragraph is more or less correct as I understand it. --Retwa (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


This is terrible and I am rewriting it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is much better and I am awesome. Improve!--Tom Moorefiat justitia 02:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

i found where andy stole this from[edit]

i could try to rewrite it but i want to add this i came across it while listening to a lecture on decision making and even has a line in there about the wisdom of a crowd being better than any expert, sounds like what andy says exactly about his best of the public Nailo1 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


The paragraph on Einstein at the bottom seems out of place. Is Andy saying that Einstein is or is not an example of BotP? Do we have a quote from him on this? Einstein is probably one of the few pretty good examples of what could reasonably be described as BotP, but for Andy to recognize him as such he would have to accept relativity. Can this be clarified? DickTurpis (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Here he includes him as an expert so ... 16:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

I noticed:[edit]

that on the Conservapedia best of the public page, the main image (Conservapedia stamped across the American constitution) is titled AmesGCPLogo.jpg. Is this the same AmesG that the system operators are exquisitely paranoid of as being "behind every sock?" Ricardo Altamirano Talk 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


The mention of Perelman and the Poincare solution doesn't fel strong enough to me. Conservapedia including him in 'Best of the Public' is monumentally stupid. Yes, he was relatively unknown by the mainstream mathematical community, but among a fairly tight group he was widely acknowledged as brilliant. It also ignores the fact that he was schooled, almost exclusively in mathematics, from the age of 10 and had a fairly classic career progression up until he withdrew from public life. In his early life he took part in international mathematics competitions, and later he held several teaching and research poitions, in both Russia and the US. He is almost the classic example of an expert. Worm (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)