Debate:Has this site changed for the worse?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by ThomasHobbes.

Hi.

I used to be an active member on this site years and years ago. I still check it out every now and then and have largely ignored the turgid site politics of this place. I enjoy WIGOCP and very little else. But still. I feel like this is a debate that needs to happen. When I look at the way this site has gone I feel very sad. The politics has become overwhelming and the members are more interested in legislating and regulating member's behaviour than they are interested in creating quality content or holding authoritarian to account. More interested in imposing silly rules on a voluntary member and contributor base than they are in just living and letting live. Frankly I think this site is barely recognisable any more. All the legalese and self important jibber jabber is painful and embarassing to read. Thats what I think anyway. Best of luck. Knowing the way this site has gone, this debate will probably be deleted. A sad reflection on this place :( ThomasHobbes (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Help! Help! MC's being repressed! Blue (is useful) 22:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Marked for deletion - Reason: Aspie fascist authoritarianism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This debate won't be deleted. We're not at that stage & probably never will be. I agree that the level of navel-gazing at this site has become a bit ridiculous & wouldn't happen at most internet communities. I think it's partly growing pains, partly down to people with strong & opposing ideological opinions on how things should be done, & partly down to our user-base having a relatively homogeneous stance on our core politics (i.e. the Missions) & so a main area for active debate is site politics. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Change for the worse? No, I don't think so. Look, we currently have a solid core of 7-8 users at least that I could name just off the top of my head who are there constantly hammering away at the mainspace, have never said a bad word to each other and are constantly engaging in interesting and constructive dialogue. I think that's more people and with more drive than ever and the atmosphere between them is more positive than ever. If there's change being driven by that group, then it won't be for the worse. ADK^{...I'll kill your domino!} 22:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that someone who "checks out this site now and then", sees enough of the politics to make any real comments. I hate the politics, and don't play them if i can avoid it - i just edit. But to me, the presentation of the site, the information of the site, and most of the fun of the site (some has been toned down, which is sad, but a reality of growth), are the same if not much better. We've grown, and hopefully, you'll take an active look at the CONTENT, and not the petty bickering. if the content is worse, do indeed say something - but if the petty bickering and political whining is what you see, and the product that the world sees is still good quality - then why worry? GodotThe Peyote God awaits 22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC) (edit con)

Blue is Ugly. ADK is mean. TY has body odor. !!! so there. a bad word. :-)GodotThe Peyote God awaits 22:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What colour should fire be committee

Somebody said navel-gazing; spot on. bang on the money. Well said. Its prepestorous. You're creating sub committees of sub committees, holding regular votes (as if that actually means anything on the internet of all places where anybody can be anybody) and constantly asserting these new rules that a small cadre is determined to impose at any cost. I'm sure there are some people uninvolved in the site politics just 'getting on with the job', but I'd wager those same people would have been doing that anyway regardless of the recent revolution. So really the revolution is being waged by the hacks for the hacks. Nobody who actively contributes either way actually cares. Its all about personalities and deliberately provoking social dynamics. Its petty and absurd. Thankfully some people actually see that and may eventually get round to putting a spanner in the works. All this navel gazing makes me dizzy. By the way, this site is almost unrecognisable compared to what it was three years ago. ThomasHobbes (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on almost every count! Nothing new, of course. Blue (is useful) 23:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You know I'm not wrong, though I suppose it is convenient to blandly state so without any corroborating evidence. ThomasHobbes (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's equally convenient to concern trolling to not cite any specific evidence for your assertions, as you have done. Blue (is useful) 23:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree =/= concern trolling. Hobbes is on the money. Ace^ace 23:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to cite specific evidence for anything. On the other hand, you are free to ignore that which visibly upsets you. Perhaps that was what went wrong with this website along the road; people got all worked up about putting their nose in where it wasn't wanted. Or even worse - getting deliberately offended. ThomasHobbes (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually, that was why I caused the May-June debacle. My desires to impose absolute rules at any cost, to provoke the perfectly tranquil social dynamics, and practice my legalese caused me to start all the petty arguments I could find, pretending to get offended so I could further disrupt the site. I've never made any contributions to this site beyond navel-gazing. The same is true of everyone else who disagrees with you and your ilk, MC. Blue (is useful) 23:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are trying to stifle debate and are indulging in being deliberately offended. As such I will not talk to you for the remainder of this debate. ThomasHobbes (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Quitter! Blue (is useful) 23:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll debate with you on my talk page, if you can promise to be civil and above all else, rational. I won't put up with these transparant antics of yours and these pathetic attempts to garner sympathy for yourself. ThomasHobbes (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. ADK^{...I'll taste your boat!} 23:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

An idea that cannot withstand scrutiny is an idea that cannot stand. ThomasHobbes (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. This site spends too much time debating within itself and too little time creating content, eh? And given that controversies have been solved, and increasingly time is just being devoted to writing articles and bantering, what better way to fix that than by creating a navel-gazing debate? How perfectly transparent. GOLLY GUYS I JUST CHECK IN OCCASIONALLY BUT I HAFTA SAY I HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT YOU MUST DEBATE ABOUT.

There is a purpose to that rule-making and procedures and whatnot - to actually fulfill the function that has occurred, the elimination of this hubbub from causing HCM and stopping productivity. I think it has actually begun to work in that effect - the orderly and quiet votes on talk pages and the upcoming work on voting procedure are a good example. Some people feel the mod system and its associated controversies are counter-productive, but I think they are (as someone else called them) growing pains.

For a long time RW was in a state of man against man, constant war and anarchy governed by the bloody-minded persistence of superusers. And that worked fine for a while. But there was a problem. In this state of total anarchy, "nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues."

Read your fucking namesake, you jackass.--^talk 00:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

AD, I really don't expect you to find any problems with a revolution you are very much at the head of. Do carry on though. ThomasHobbes (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My fucking lord you have a high view of your mission, AD. I always though you were just a little earnest. I thought Blue and Nx were the authoritarian cunts and you were just doctrinaire because you thought it would get you more internet admirers thinking you're "cute." But Jesus christ man. Now that you're spouting off, why don't you put some specifics to this "state of man against man, constant war and anarchy governed by the bloody-minded persistence of superusers" and why, assuming you're right (lol), that old anarchy (which was hardly total, it worked really well for 4 years) ceased working. MarcusCicero was right about you. Oh and fuck your libel against anarchy. You know not of what you speak if that kind of blithe misconstruction passes for a snappy comeback. Fucking quotemining Hobbes. You motherfucker. 01:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'd rather not get into another contest about this and prompt yet more shrieking about the times and the morals. It's totally awesome you want to have this exact same discussion again, though. The last four times weren't sufficient for me, either, which is why I frequently regurgitate my food and chew it again and again (this is not effective for milkshakes, for which I use an elaborate system of tubes and pulleys).

For fuck's sake, everyone understands your position at this point and exactly how pedantic/vainglorious/stupid you consider myself, Blue, Nx, and anyone else who <INSERT AWKWARD METAPHOR FOR SEEKING ORDER HERE>. For my part, I have rather a higher opinion of you, but whatever - I don't care, vent your bile if you must. Just try not to dance so exactly to this asshole's tune, eh? He's already off creating multiple threads on user talk pages, and probably next we'll see some big plan or something (depending on whether or not he has an exam this week). Otherwise, good luck with it, I'm done with anything involving this particular effort at a manufactoversy.--^talk 01:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see parallels with CP and Ken. The "utile" (literally, in the case of RW) users are given pass for transgressions against rational discourse. <lol>And Trent is silent... Silent!</lol> Occasionaluse (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

He is your conscience, AD. It's a manufactroversy about as much as this discussion about site culture is over. You've yet to make any case for this state of "order" you prefer over what you've libeled in broad terms. I'm sorry for being hateful in my prior posts. It's not personal, mostly. 01:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I know it's not personal, ultimately. You just love RW, and that's nothing but admirable. Replied on your talk page :) --^talk 02:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No

I think the site has matured past the days when it was just a hang out for people who were mere reactionaries of CP. It has a larger more diverse userbase. We are attracting good quality editors. Some, like myself, are PhDs (or nearly PhD anyway) who specialise in the areas they are writing in. Others are supporters of the skeptical/rational movement. Quite a few come here thinking this is the CP vandal site. With this come some problems. People have different visions of what RationalWiki should be. Some view it as just an internet hang out, some view it as nothing more than WIGOCP, others are working towards the aim of a high quality information source. It is this latter aim I think we are moving closer to and this is the direction I get the impression the board is moving towards. If we wish to continue this aim and we wish to continue attracting high quality editors we need an environment they would like to edit it in. We rightly laughed at CP when TK drove Prof. Jensen away, but we have never attracted an editor of his standing. So yes it has changed, but it a good change that was needed. If you want a playground the internet is a big place and other site will host a wiki for free so start your own. - π 02:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Lipson who founded the site and Robbins who edited a little when plugging the Lay Science blog when it was set up, both moved on to bigger and better things, and that's cool, I think. Though are people of any standing going to be bothered with a site where people are free to replace other users' signatures with porn? Otherwise, I totally agree there. ADK^{...I'll stir your snowflake!} 14:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm ... "Lipson who founded the site"? He was certainly around but there is really a "reference needed" tag there.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

LA Times, of course. ADK^{...I'll defenestrate your driptray!} 22:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Must be true then.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet the problem is caused by the neuroses of the member base. Professor Jensen wouldn't edit here now, just as he wouldn't have 6 months ago. The 'problem', as you see it, is endemic and will not be cured by throwing 'the baby out with the bathwater' as you lot have done. If people didn't deliberately get offended, poke their nose in where it wasn't warranted, and generally didn't instintively pursue a 'regulation' for every aspect of someone's behaviour that offends them, there would simply be no problems. Those are the real issues, try and deny them as they may. In a nutshell; You lot are too immature. ThomasHobbes (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious. what is "the problem" you think has to be addressed. You are very generic about the "issues". GodotThe Peyote God awaits 15:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that MC is bored because there's not enough drama at RW, so he's bringing up the same old bullshit in an attempt to make some. DFTT. -- Nx / talk 19:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Groan. It's al so DFTT.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, can you please just assume good faith? These odd accusations are beginning to grate on me a little. Noticing the conflict between Psygremlin (Who was very close being a moderator) and the earnest Maratrean, I can't help but shed a tear. This is effectively bullying at this stage. You should never have created the institution. Deleting an essay and banning somebody for three months because they expressed an unpopular opinion would have been anathema only last year. Shame on you all. Shame. ThomasHobbes (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A note from somebody who's been reading pages on the site for the past 30 minutes

There is an IMMENSE, an absolutely goddamn IMMENSE amount of strawmen, bias and falsehoods on this wiki. I have not seen a more biased or ignorant website in my LIFETIME. I think my sanity just snapped when I saw on a certain persons page that he was, quote, a "fat-shamer" which is the most ridiculous, the most borderline bullshit term I have ever heard. And it was used completely unironically, with no sarcasm. I just feel so tired now after reading for only thirty motherfucking minutes. This wiki is awful. ^{— Unsigned, by: ArchibaldFooster / talk / contribs}