Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Debate:Mission Accomplished

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by signed users.


Is it time to move on? Should we plan a long-term boycott? The floor is open. Jorge 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ I saw a yellow submarine by here... 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
As in, is Conservapedia so dead that we can leave it to stagger on, so burdened by its own absurdity that no-one uses it seriously? Totnesmartin 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me suggest a scenario: At some point in the future we coordinate a mass strike of parthian shots, and agree not to create any new socks afterward. This would not only be disruptive, but lend anyone sufficiently embedded who did not wish to participate some increased credibility on the site. Jorge 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently CP is brain dead and the wiki equivalent of Terri Schiavo. However, until they actually turn off the life support and give it a decent burial/evolutioncremation it will drag on ignominiously. (Apologies for any poor taste in this comment)  Lily Inspirate me. 20:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's just tell it bye and move on. For example, let's attack the wp:EmDrive, wp:Lawsnomony, etc. We should also get the damn science namespace built! If we aren't going to become a dump, we will need to cover some new ground and fortify our existing ground. --Prim arthropleura.jpg 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding misinformation, or just plain good facts and reasonable analysis, to CP articles was fun in the beginning because I was under the delusion that more than RW socks and 6 active CP admin and editors actually looked at that odious heap of shit. But I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm wrong. Whether to do a long-term boycott depends on your goals. I personally do occassionally find it fun to hide buried turds for TK to dig up, but I just increasingly have no stomach for the kind of unalloyed idiocy I have to endure (even just reading the fucking thing) to get my edits done. In other words, before I peeled the onion so far down to the core that I could see it's really just a ball of shit wrapped in bible paper, it was fun to edit responsibly on controversial subjects and speak truth. Now the only thing I really want to do is either take a squat over the thing or leave it alone, and mostly I just want to be done with it. It's too depressing to imagine that these CP people live in such utterly horrid worlds that this is how they wish to occupy themselves daily. So is CP dead? It wasn't ever really more than an animated corpse to begin with. If you leave it be it'll just continue lumbering about like a blind and retarded zombie. And it'll always be there to poke with sticks if you feel like it. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we only claim victory after one of sysops/admins got blocked by collateral damage. Thieh 00:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, move on to crank WP articles[edit]

These are a far, far greater threat to rationalism on the internet than any of the cranks on CP. Articles like wp:Morphic field and wp:Esther Hicks (until Trent wrestled in the mud to fix it) support an irrational, crank point of view, and - and this is the crucial thing - on the main source of reference on the internet. CP was good for laughs, but there are bigger fish to fry. Bastard harmonic Phantom! 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Trouble is we don't want our editors to be branded on WP as members of an attack site. ToastToastand marmite 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
We could do what we do to CP; point out errors and let them fix the problems. That way, it's not us doing the attacking. Z3rotalk 21:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
My idea exactly. Seriously, I've tried several times to get that Morphic field article, to no avail. Bastard harmonic Phantom! 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This would have to be done with some sensitivity (per Toast's comment), but would be very much worth doing. OneForLogic 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realize such nonsense lived over at WP. Attack!!!!!!!!!!--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov» 21:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My Wp watchlist (part):

ToastToastand marmite 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We should call attention to this list. Almost everybody has heard of Wikipedia. At my school, the conservatives never reference CP when they write essays. Another point I'd like to bring up is...
What I was thinking was more along the lines, to start, of writing articles on things that WP allows the wingnuts too much leeway on. As far as getting them to "fix" the articles, well, you go there and do it, or argue on the talk pages. But as I said above, if WP isn't covering something "properly", we at least can do so. Then we can slap little "go to RW" boxen on the articles and all get booted from WP ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
From what I've seen, the reality version of the universe is pretty well patrolled. There's not a lot for us to fight about. ToastToastand marmite 02:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Toast, did you read the first line of this section? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias against Wikipedia[edit]

It doesn't really fit into the RationalWiki goals, but because Wikipedia is the source of scientific knowledge for 90% (made up statistic) of the the average population (someone who doesn't have a degree in science), it might be good to put more focus on addressing bias against Wikipedia. My Christian friend recently said "People who believe in absolute truth hate Wikipedia". This worries me. Wikipedia is an amazing resource for the average person; it brings a vast amount of knowledge into one, easily searchable domain. I'm basically proposing a revamp of the RW article on Wikipedia and moving the fun stuff to a fun namespace. Kind of like the serious article we currently have on teh Assfly combined with the fun one. The jokes in our aticle against Wikipedia are mostly coming from the perspective that they've read Conservapedia, and I believe that the average newcomer (me!) had never even heard of Conservapedia before coming here. Echoing the above points, maybe we should cut down on the anti-Conservapedia stance and focus more on the anti-crank and anti-anti-science perspectives. Clepper 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I like your style, young sir. ToastToastand marmite 23:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe just add a serious section to the WP article? I'm not sure this site can handle having more than two or three "serious" articles... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Look in the mirror first[edit]

Change your name and change your attitudes, simple as that. As long as you talk and crack jokes that are funny to 15 year olds, and generally have little aptitude for rational thought (Of course that only applies to half of you or so, around half of you are very clever people indeed) this place will rightfully be laughed at as the childish place it is. Everyone should be self conscious of their own limitations - you might think I am arrogant and very sure of myself and my brain but I am most definately not. I'm all too aware of my defects, but at least I have the terseness to point out the delusions of grandeur of this place. The vainglorious title rationalwiki has to go. I see very little rational discussion ever take place here, mainly crude joke/insults against people of religious faith or Teeny/angsty threads like this one. Yawn. MarcusCicero 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Yawn is right. Tiresome, much, Marcus?--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov» 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A typical response. MarcusCicero 22:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How could we have so debased ourselves in thine eyes, dear Marcus Cicero? When will they stop rightfully laughing at us cower here in our squallid intellectual ghetto? I'm happy I found RW for its impressive amount of original work on on-mission articles, admirably conducted discussion and debate, and good company. As the Pixies said, it's educational. So I disagree with much of you said, but that's probably because I'm sitting here dignifying a troll. Tell you what - go vandalize some RW pages with whatever brand of truth you buy. Call the site something other than RationalWiki over and over and over, but make it good. And take a crap on the front porch and set it on fire. You're the boss. It'll make you feel better. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A brave comment by a brave IP. 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I reckon...[edit]

We cant declare mission accomplished until CP is ONLY a resource for his homeskoolers and stops pretending to be a public encyclopedia. It'll happen soon but it's not done yet. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 23:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)