Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Debate talk:The Rationalwiki Reform Society

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please, for the love of god MC[edit]

Lets not go back down this road. RW is what it is. Res Ipsa Loquitur. If you dont like, dont edit here. But you cannot change it, bend it to suit your whim. Sure debate what you want but if no one is impressed by your proposed changes you'll just have to suck it up like a big boy. I hate internet memes (WTF is a "LOLCAT"?)and have never been to 4Chan (maybe once) but I don't go around telling people to not use them. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Res Ipsa Loquitor" FTW, Ace. I fuckin' love you. RaoulDuke 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest nothing cumpulsory, only a change in spirit in the place. If you are content with being a hypocrite, that is fine. But don't try to stand in the way of change. MarcusCicero 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont understand how I am hypocrite I am afraid, you'll have to give me an example. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You are a hypocrite for being a member of a website which has the mission status it has (Somewhere in the air, not real) and for being afraid to challenge the basic assumption that intellectual degeneracy and internet age humour is all RW should aspire to be. MarcusCicero 21:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I still fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite. You have stated an opinion, simply an opinion that doesn't really hold much water. Stop being so serious MC. This place has a serious side but a fun side and if you don't like it you know what to do. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how the fun side can be considered fun, and how the serious side can be considered serious. MarcusCicero 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Then how is it our fault that you are unable to figure it out? As stated, we cannot bend to suit because you don't get it. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what you are driving at. I'm not forcing this on anyone. I'm not making anything cumpulsory. Surely I'm just as free to make this point as you are to make the point that I am wrong? I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who feels this way. MarcusCicero 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are. You are suggesting we delete the Saloon bar. And then? People will just talk on TWIGO:CP or Talk:Main Page or whatever. Or should we also introduce a 90/10 rule? -- Nx / talk 22:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
"I don't understand how the fun side can be considered fun, and how the serious side can be considered serious." If you cannot figure this out, it is not our problem. Examples of others who feel the same as you please so then I can have them weigh in on this debate. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You really aren't following my line of thought at all, are you? MarcusCicero 22:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should make it clearer exactly what is going through your head. So far - you don't get RW and you want it changed to suit what you think it should be. Thats about all you have really said. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 22:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What RW should be[edit]

Its not like I am inventing in my own head what RW should be. The mission statement and the 'about' section make it very clear what RW should be. My society is aimed at bringing RW closer to these principles based not on cumpulsion but on reason. If you disagree, fine, I'll not try to convince you other than simply show you what I believe to be the case. But you are making an unpersuasive argument by telling me RW is essentially an irrelevant internet backwater where emigrants from 4Chan are welcomed with open arms. MarcusCicero 22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Back this up MC. A) How we are not with our mission statement (although a little mission creep 'is expected and has happened) B) Where the emigrants of 4Chan are - and what you mean by this. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I simply can't respond to this. Its like you are seeing a completely different website to the one I am seeing. MarcusCicero 22:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've always wondered what the wiki MC sees looks like. Sounds like an awful place. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes MC. that is my point. You dont get it and because you dont you are bewildered you are trying to get people to change it to a form you understannd. Be a big boy MC. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
MC, it's easy enough to just ignore the stupid jokes. I'm fairly new here, but I've found that the best way to generate productive, reasonable discussion at RationalWiki is to make meaningful edits to the serious articles. There are plenty of them that need work; if you want to make this place better why not improve the actual articles? JS Leitch 22:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm making the case for uniting enough people together to reject the stupid jokes. I tried, earlier on today to bring reason to the Maggie Thatcher article. This is what prompted this effort. The culture here is simply unconducive to making reasonable, rational articles. There has to be a change from the ground up. MarcusCicero 22:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Who are you trying to unite? And we have many reasonable articles and many snarky ones. Again, if you dont like it just suck it up or stay away. Simple. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't a "change from the ground up" be the creation of a new wiki? And anyway, I rather like the jokes - there's good satire here in a lot of articles. I haven't seen a whole lot of stupid 4chan crap. JS Leitch 22:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


The rejection of all fringe and crackpot theories - of either the left or right wing variety.
The creation of more internet memes in either debate or inter-personal discussions.
The rejection of all fake internet authority - This means a determination to see through and accomplish the original meaning of the sysop corps (To in effect, be irrelevant)
The rejection of irrelevant internet hierarchies, of either a formal or informal nature.
The rejection of religion.
The increase of personal insults based solely on political or religious beliefs.
The determination to hold investigations of current affairs, the humanities, the social sciences, philosophy, religion and science to the highest degree of candour and passion.
The determination to assert the primacy of reason - to include scurrilous deduction and/or ideologically motivated political stilting - in all Rationalwikian articles and discussion pages.
The encouragement of meaningful intellectual discussions on Rationalwiki.
The enhancement of the Saloon bar and all other associated hangouts which foster irrelevance and jokes of a juvenile nature
I am eating Toast& honeychat 22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Great, the most indignant, unrepentive and acidic bigot of them all, SusanG - personification of everything that is wrong with this place, including the undue hierarchal position she occupies, make her case. The swaggery is only overcome by the incredulity of her position. MarcusCicero 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Kiss.gif I am eating Toast& honeychat 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Susan's list is much more useful than the one on this debate page. I would hasten to add, "Encourage everyone to drop by and wreck Human's talk page when he sets out the party favors." ħumanUser talk:Human 00:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Surely the prime motive for being part of RationalWiki is to have "fun". Now this can be interpreted in several ways, such as taking joy in mixing with people who hold similar political or philosophical viewpoints or share similar tastes in music or literature, pursuing an agenda of bringing rationalism to a wider audience by writing articles, or just enjoying the mechanics of Wiki-making as an end in itself. The key to making anything successful is that the process should be enjoyable, if it is too dry then it becomes boring, people lose interest and it becomes a ghost-town inhabitated by monomanics. Because RW was founded by a bunch of exiles from Conservapedia, the ridiculing of CP's conservative Christian extremism is an integral part of our site. Many would like to see its prominence diminished but we cannot ignore the fact that WIGO:CP is what led many editors here in the first place. As a popular destination the WIGO talk page started to include topics that were irrelevant to events at CP but were of common interest to several editors and ended up making the page long and unwieldy in a short space of time. I therefore started the saloon bar as a place where items of common interest could be discussed. I envisaged a virtual pub where you could walk in and find groups of people with similar interests discussing what is going on in the world or just sharing their own life and problems. If you don't like the conversation of a particular group, then just ignore it, find another or start your own and see if anyone wants to join in. Abusing, those already in the room is not a good way to make friends. As one of the older RWians I tend to ignore the kids' musical discussions but do join in with the things that interest me. Even if I cannot contibute to a thread it is often interesting to read what other editors have to say about issues in their own country or if they have found an interesting web-site, book, or movie. Discussions can also lead to the creation of new articles. Othertimes I may copyedit or add to articles. It makes little difference to me whether internet memes are included in RW as that is the nature of the medium we are working with. The same happens in television, radio, newspapers or literature. As to our SPOV I think this what makes some of our articles different to what is often covered in much greater depth on WIkipedia. It is dog-in-the-mangerish to try and get the bits you don't like banned, much better to help improve the bits that you do like in line with our stated SPOV. Wikipedia became boring for me because just like CP many people in power control their own little domains. Power here is widely distributed and apart from TMT who holds the keys, no-one is "better" or wields more power over issues about editing. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. This site costs money to run. TMT probably contributes more than his fair share both in time and $, while I and many others pay a not insignificant sum for the privilege of keeping it running but have no more say in the running of affairs than the occasional editor or reader. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

where is /Susan/?

She's Toast. Educated educated Hoover! 08:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Susan's toast? How very sad. I hope they get the bastard who did it. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to Turdblossom[edit]

Move this to Category:Turdblossoms? Sterile extension cord 21:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This and Debate:Inactivity. -- Nx / talk 21:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)