There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Conservapedia talk:Burning the Evidence
Shout out to PZ Myers - Can I read this somewhere?!
I am intrigued.
This is a random comment, inserted in to a talk page. --Ask me about your mother 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is a reply to that random comment which attempts to derail serious conversation with the insertion of sophomoric humour, or perhaps a reference to memes. Omnomnomnom cocks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
An Automated Means of Uncovering Oversighted Articles?
I imagine work has already began, but if not - there is a relatively simple (conceptually, but the code would be a b!tch) way for someone with the appropriate skills to uncover oversights. One would need to create a bot (or many, really) that performs binary comparison on each diff of each article, systematically. More realistically, a tool could be created that compares every diff of a single article. This would reveal, as far as I can see, any additional, un-logged edits that occurred between the 'old' and 'new' version of the article. Has anyone started (or completed!) development on a tool of this nature?
Talkpage entries are also deleted on Wikipedia