Forum:2016 Mission Survey

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The mission survey results are out!

See here for Google's summaries, or here for a gigantic .PNG that shows every single response.

There were 249 non-troll, non-spam, non-dox responses.

First mission question[edit]

Question text: If you could change the first mission statement, what would you change it to? ("Remove entirely" and "Would not change" are fine!)

There were 102 responses, which fit into 10 categories:

And 64 variations of "would not change". Average rating was 4.573839662; median was 5.

Rate1.PNG

Second mission question[edit]

Question text: If you could change the second mission statement, what would you change it to? ("Remove entirely" and "Would not change" are fine!)

There were 104 valid responses, which fit into 10 categories.

And 49 variations on "it's fine". Average rating was 4.25210084; median was 5.

Rate2.PNG

Third mission question[edit]

Question text: If you could change the third mission statement, what would you change it to? ("Remove entirely" and "Would not change" are fine!)

There were 94 valid responses, which fit into 10 categories:

And 60 variations on "would not change". Average rating was 4.033613445; median was 4.

Rate3.PNG

Fourth mission question[edit]

If you could change the fourth mission statement, what would you change it to? ("Remove entirely" and "Would not change" are fine!)

There were 88 valid responses, which fit into 10 categories.

And 59 variations on "it's fine".

Average rating was 4.241525424; median was 5.

Rate4.PNG

Purpose of RationalWiki[edit]

Question text: What do you believe is the purpose of RationalWiki, if any?

196 valid responses.

Missional subjects[edit]

235 valid results, as follows:

Topics.png

No topics got below 50% approval.

Lowest rated 5 topics:

  • Language (52.8%)
  • Law (mainstream) (54%)
  • Astronomy (mainstream) (54.5%)
  • Politics (Israel and Palestine in Particular) (54.9%)
  • Math (56.6%)

Highest rated 5 topics:

  • Anti-vaccination movement (91.5%)
  • Alternative medicine (91.5%)
  • Conspiracy theories (91.5%)
  • Creationism (91.1%)
  • Pseudoscience (91.1%)

Upholding the mission[edit]

Question text: How well does RationalWiki uphold its current mission?

239 valid responses.

Average rating 3.806722689, median 4.

Mission 1.PNG

Question text: How well does RationalWiki uphold the mission you described above?

235 valid responses.

Average rating 3.854700855, median 4.

Mission2.PNG

And that's about it[edit]

I excluded the suggestions about the polls -- there's a lot, they're hard to categorize, and I'm tired. Go look at them yourself!

Any thoughts? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. The topics people find the most important are precisely those I consider to be covered by the first two mission statements (and perhaps the third).
  2. Aeonian's last response to this sums up the results pretty well.
  3. The things that cause little to no controversy on the wiki are important, whereas one of the most controversial things (I-P) is deemed relatively unimportant.
  4. I'm actually surprised to see how many people think GG/SJ and related articles matter, though 176-178 votes isn't that much.
--JorisEnter (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's interesting how authoritarianism and radicalism/extremism both have around 80%, but when you ask people about a topic which features plenty examples of both—Israel-Palestine—it suddenly drops to 50%. I guess that means people are still not informed enough about the issue. So how about it, folks; who wants to learn about the Isreali-Palestine conflict? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK this is because it's not really possible to say who's right and who's wrong in the I-P conflict; I guess most people think of authoritarianism as involving Nazis and The Donald, both of which are pretty obviously wrong. The same goes for extremism.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
That's a false dilemma, though. Factually describing the conflict doesn't necessitate us taking any 'side' (as if all the factions can be neatly divided into two sides to begin with). And with there being authoritarianism and extremism both among Israelis and Palestinians, you'd think there'd be double the amount of missional stuff to cover. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
My point is that RW is at its best when it can consistently say "you're wrong, and here's why", followed by a bunch of references. This is much more difficult when (a) there is no clear side that is "wrong" (we might say that they're all wrong), and (b) a bunch of editors have their own opinions on the matter. Now I get that most RW editors have their own opinions on something like creationism as well, but almost everyone's opinion is that creationism is stupid, which allows for both less edit warring and a consistent and clear-cut presentation of the case. With something like I-P, different people have different opinions and they aren't exactly willing to give theirs up (which might be because it is simply not possible to say who's right and who's wrong).--JorisEnter (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia also has its "Level 1 vital articles", or the ten most important articles on WP. We might create something similar on RW, containing the ten or so most important articles we have. These would include the five articles that correspond to the most important topics according to this survey (creationism, alternative medicine, anti-vaccination movement, conspiracy theory and pseudoscience), plus a few others.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I was busy writing an analysis of the results but then I apparently hit some sort of key combination that deleted it all. Crap.
As a rule of thumb, however, article that involve clear-cut cases of who's right and who's wrong (pseudoscience, creationism etc) are popular, whereas articles that involve politics and other things that are much less obvious are unpopular. Also, "mainstream" things (astronomy, history, law) are not considered particularly missional - this may be because there's not much that can be said about them without the article becoming a condensed version of the corresponding Wikipedia article.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Joris: Yeah, sounds about right. There were quite a few on-point suggestions about having "missionality" be more like 3 categories -- "always on-mission", "sometimes on-mission", and "never on-mission". I'd bet that the low-ranked stuff would consistently fall into "sometimes". FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right. Most categories have at least something that can be missional - even Gamergate stuff is an interesting exercise in some sort of authoritarianism/fundamentalism, I guess.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hm. The vital articles idea certainly seems correct. RW seems to categorize people and organizations by saying "Person X supports Y, which is wrong" but doesn't in-detail explain why Y is wrong in Person X's article -- making the article about Y almost more important than the one about X. For example, GlobalResearch barely discusses the conspiracy theories -- but notes that GlobalResearch supports them. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that "HIGH" priority really doesn't mean anything. While there certainly are plenty of pages that are high priority, scrolling through the category doesn't tell you much about what articles actually matter. A category like "TOP" priority articles would contain the ten or so most important articles, which ideally would all be worked up to gold rating.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The link to the png is broken. Flannan Isle (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Shit, you're right. My computer can't connect to internet ATM so I can't reupload the image; sorry. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato-related discussions[edit]

Where did the discussion occur in which anyone asked you to conduct this survey? Conscience (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This wasn't discussed, FCP just put the survey in the intercom.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you. Conscience (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
If didn't happen, but about a hundred little catfights about what is missional did. Oh, and please make sure to remind me how a survey is violating consensus. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
What an odd and slippery response, but one that highlights where your problem lies. See, you do what you want unless enough people tell you not to, and even then you ignore them if you feel like it. Consensus is not you going against a majority telling you not to do something. It's a reasonable number of interested people expressing support. You didn't have authority to put your poorly designed personal survey on the top of every page on the site. You never bothered to even ask, and you're not a leader, anyone's boss, or personally responsible for changing the entire site as you appear bent on doing. I think David Gerard described your behavior and dumb survey very well:
No, this is bullshit. The survey was bogus to start with, it was falsely painted as official, it's the sort of ludicrous rubbish RW routinely pillories people for, a pile of people (e.g. me) didn't participate because of its ludicrous bogosity and you're trying to draw conclusions from it. There are literally no conclusions to be drawn from it that you didn't bring with you - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
None of the people here who know what they're doing and understand this site support anything you do. Conscience (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Because you, with all those useful contributions, do know what to do? Sorry mate, but you're a joke. You can't be bothered to make a single contribution, yet you somehow feel qualified to comment upon other people's behaviour as if you are better at this than any of those who actually do something. The best sailors are ashore, as a Dutch proverb says, and I cannot help but note that you are a perfect example of this.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been on this site for many years longer than you. I now see that you can't even read. Congratulations. RW will suit your need for snap judgments and confirmation bias. Conscience (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
If you've been here for seven years, I can only say that you haven't done much. Having been here for a long time doesn't mean anything - having been here and actually having done something is what counts, and I can only say that you fail miserably on that criterion.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Man you're dumb. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for making such a useful contribution that clearly raises the level of this discussion.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry mate, but you're a joke. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. I think "A horse goes into a bar. Bartender says "why the long face?"" is a joke.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
[EC]It just seems like rage boner tantrum time against FCP from all the contributions before this forum post even started. FCP even asked what he is doing that makes you so angry to fix it and to a resounding "Go away. Go away. Go away. Jesus fuck go away". If he wants to be taken seriously, and has been championing his opinion means a lot after being a "contributor" for 7 years in various ways, why play all coy with being transparent with the how and under what other pseudonyms. I can also champion my opinion meaning a lot because I am the emperor of Mars if you don't bother to ask for evidence :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you also subliterate or are you making things up? FCP didn't ask me anything about his behavior. He asked about the mission, and consistent with my belief that he is a pushy incompetent and not caring to help him, I told him to go away. Go read my talk page and tell me you understand where you went wrong. Guys, this isn't about me. Either FCP is subject to criticisms or he is not. This pathetic pattern repeats itself so often with some of you. Conscience (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
He was asking for your opinion, that was the subject since you posted it here but it was a pretty open question you could have expressed any concerns very easily instead of being shitty. Here's how someone with interpersonal skills would have done it: "My concerns aren't the mission, it's you. Here's why..." YOU CAN EVEN USE THAT WITH MY BLESSING. This is really basic communication skill use.
It is about you when you make your claimed experience the only reason why and then complain mightily when people ask for your experience...it's fucking dumb and grossly obvious you are lying or hiding something. Every person I have seen has asked about this and you accuse others of being less than literate while you ignore inquiries. You can accuse me of being subliterate all you want but when you ignore this at the same time it's a blast to watch :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
For fuck's sake ASSUME GOOD FAITH. I'm fed up with you guys making assumptions that if you don't know who someone is then it must be someone up to no good. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I sincerely wonder what "assuming good faith" has to do with this.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm.png Read the things that you & ECW have posted in this thread. Look at the assumptions you have made about somebody you don't actually know. That s/he hasn't contributed anything, can't be bothered, isn't "qualified" to express opinions here, and is lying or hiding something. This is what not assuming good faith looks like. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
[EC] If someone goes out of their way to shove this "experience" in everyone's face like a badge but spends days doing their best to avoid answering to any possible degree, without providing other evidence, that's when my good faith ends. I am a returning sysop just shy of that long but I don't go around shoving it everyone's face that I know better than them. I don't think I have mentioned it before actually but I might be wrong. I feel like if I did the same it would be perfectly legit to make those same assumptions about me.
I am willing to be wrong but just repeating "assume good faith" is not addressing my concerns. The main one being the repetition of not liking one user and repeated claims of being an experienced user that cannot be verified. Pointing this out just got insults in return. As well as FCP trying to do something to hash it out. These are not good faith or honest moves that have been addressed at all and really make the assumption of good faith difficult. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Did someone go out of their way to shove this "experience" in everyone's face? It seems to me like (in this thread) Conscience expressed an opinion & JorisEnter insisted that it must be justified by experience. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "hasn't contributed anything" - I'd really like to know what they have contributed
  • "can't be bothered" - well, given that they created an account but did not contribute anything, yet still claim to have been "watching" RW for many years, I wonder why they didn't contribute anything
  • "isn't qualified" - I do not consider someone who apparently hasn't done a thing around here qualified to make meaningful comments about how the wiki should be run
  • "lying or hiding something" - where the fuck did I say this?--JorisEnter (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I said that, and I stand by it, because if I was a returning user that wanted to make a substantive change to the wiki with my reputation behind it I would have logged into this account to do it or referenced it. I also could have done all sorts of trouble if I really felt incised enough to do more than type. I like you Weasel, and I can see your point, but see it from our point of views as well. -~ Subsound ~ 19:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
(EC, reply to JorisEnter:) Again, this is the sort of thing I'm fed up with. Nobody owes you anything or has to justify themselves to you. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
(Reply to Subsound:) "if I was a returning user that wanted to make a substantive change to the wiki..." So what? Can't you comprehend that other people's actions & reasons for them might be different from your own? I'm saying "assume good faith" and you're all just replying "we don't wanna". ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel

Since you want to make this about me, I think it’s time to talk about intellectual honesty.

Joris Enter claims: Reality
Because you, with all those useful contributions, do know what to do? Sorry mate, but you're a joke. If you bothered to actually read what I’m saying, you’d be able to come to an honest conclusion yourself. I don’t have to tell you how credible I am or am not.
You can't be bothered to make a single contribution, yet you somehow feel qualified to comment upon other people's behaviour as if you are better at this than any of those who actually do something. I must have gotten deeply under your skin. I’m sure you’ll have a good explanation for why someone ought not be able to comment on such things without the Joris Enter stamp of approval.
If you've been here for seven years, I can only say that you haven't done much. Having been here for a long time doesn't mean anything - having been here and actually having done something is what counts, and I can only say that you fail miserably on that criterion. I agree that being here a long time doesn’t mean anything, so why are you infatuated with your idea that it does? I don’t owe you any explanation of who I am before I’m allowed to speak. Sorry, but it’s just true.

Emerald City Wanderer fares no better.

ECW claims: Reality
FCP even asked what he is doing that makes you so angry to fix it and to a resounding "Go away. Go away. Go away. Jesus fuck go away". As I said, no he didn’t ask me what makes me so angry. He asked about the mission, which I don’t think should change.
If he wants to be taken seriously, and has been championing his opinion means a lot after being a "contributor" for 7 years in various ways, why play all coy with being transparent with the how and under what other pseudonyms. … I didn’t champion how my opinion means a lot. I made a single reference to having been here for a while when Joris Enter inanely suggested I don't know what I'm talking about as a way to completely dismiss what I'm saying. I shouldn't have to tell you that being a nobody has nothing to do with the merits.
He was asking for your opinion, that was the subject since you posted it here but it was a pretty open question you could have expressed any concerns very easily instead of being shitty. Being honest isn’t hard. He was asking my opinion about something specific, not “pretty open”. You’ve misrepresented this point twice. Why?
"My concerns aren't the mission, it's you. Here's why..." Wait. You ‘did’ read, but are misrepresenting things for the third time.
It is about you when you make your claimed experience the only reason why … Except I didn’t. I raised it in response to Joris Enter’s purely ad hominem claim. Had I said my opinion has weight because I'm a great authority, a reasonable response might have been “who cares? What you say stands or falls on the merits.”.
and then complain mightily when people ask for your experience You don’t need to misrepresent the conversation yet further. It’s right here. I haven’t complained, mightily or at all. I made a single reference in response to a bogus claim.
it's fucking dumb and grossly obvious you are lying or hiding something. What’s dumb and dishonest is to continue misrepresenting the conversation and get more meta without having a single substantive thing to say. It’s not a blast to watch. It’s pathetic.
Every person I have seen has asked about this I don’t see “every person” asking anything. I see “every person” attacking me on false grounds without responding to what I've actually said, not that it was even directed to any of you.
You can accuse me of being subliterate all you want If I took it back, it would be to call you a liar instead.
but when you ignore this at the same time it's a blast to watch :-) I don’t think you’re having a blast. You seem to be very angry that I asked a question that makes you uncomfortable. Heaven forbid anyone says something you don't like.
If someone goes out of their way to shove this "experience" in everyone's face like a badge One reference in response to a bogus claim isn’t going out of my way to shove anything in anyone’s face.
but spends days doing their best to avoid answering to any possible degree, without providing other evidence. You’re showing a real disregard for the truth. Where are these days. Where is this great effort to avoid answering this irrelevant question. Seems to me that I was just ignoring it because it’s stupid.
repeated claims of being an experienced user that cannot be verified You should stop lying. I made a single reference to having been here for a while in response to the stupid suggestion that a stranger oughtn't be able to comment because Joris Enter doesn't approve.
Pointing this out just got insults in return Insults in return for insults, an ad hom, and lies, where not one of you has bothered to address what I’ve said, just your own idea that I’m a nobody who’s not entitled to comment.
As well as FCP trying to do something to hash it out He came to my talk page to ask me something specific, which you’ve misrepresented, that I have no obligation to discuss with him. He wasn't hashing anything out.
These are not good faith or honest moves that have been addressed at all Honest moves? But who's been lying, ECW?

Conscience (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Bravo sir. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"I agree that being here a long time doesn’t mean anything, so why are you infatuated with your idea that it does?"
Because you introduced it here: "None of the people here who know what they're doing and understand this site support anything you do." You claimed to speak for those who "really understand RationalWiki", so...it's fair to ask how you could think you speak for them.
Not that I agree this survey was the right thing to do, or that FCP doesn't make messes sometimes, but...Christ, people, at least be consistent.204.11.142.106 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Because you introduced it here: "None of the people here who know what they're doing and understand this site support anything you do." This isn't hard y'all. Me referring to people who know what they're doing and understand RW equates to me claiming that me being here a long time makes me credible how?
You claimed to speak for those who "really understand RationalWiki", so...it's fair to ask how you could think you speak for them. Perhaps I claimed to know what the experienced users commenting here think. If I did, that's overreaching if they disagree, which I don't see them doing. But just be honest that nobody asked me how I could think I speak for them. It's ok. Be honest. You can do it. Conscience (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid is right that people need to stop assuming bad faith for Conscience, but it would help if they were less, ah, combative. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Me referring to people who know what they're doing and understand RW equates to me claiming that me being here a long time makes me credible how?" - It's you claiming to speak for the community that does work here. If you haven't been part of that community, it's fair to ask why you think you can speak for them. If you weren't claiming the right to speak for them and the implicit authority of speaking for the consensus, then your right to do so wouldn't have been questioned.
"But just be honest that nobody asked me how I could think I speak for them." --Joris immediately responded with "Because you, with all those useful contributions, do know what to do?". His first response was questioning your right to speak for the consensus of editors, based on your lack of being one, and your response was to bring up how long you've been here. WTF.204.11.142.106 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter[edit]

Maybe Conscience is literally Internet Hitler or maybe Conscience is the voice of the people. Nobody should care. Discussing each other is pointless. Whatever criticisms Conscience has, those should be the focus. Please, for the disbelief of god. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No prob. -~ Subsound ~ 21:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it should be. S/he shouldn't be called on to justify eir presence here or right to express opinions. And yes, this does matter. This is part of a pattern & it needs to stop. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone shut the fuck up for a bit & actually read the survey results[edit]

  1. Strong support for the mission as currently framed.
  2. Mission generally being realised, though with room for improvement.
  3. Some interesting qualitative data in the purpose of RW section: mostly positive and supportive of the site in general.

Why are folks getting all angried up about this? Robledo (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Read this forum page start to finish and you'll see some of the reasons why. If you're sincerely curious, I can suggest related threads on other pages. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I have read the forum page from start to finish. There is, however, no solid evidence in the survey results that says much, if anything, needs to change. Once people realise that, I'm (charitably) assuming they'll be more inclined to sheath their e-penises and STFU. Robledo (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
For reference, the strongest "pro-change" faction is one which thinks the mission is great and should be reworded, and many more people supported "don't change" for every question. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Nonetheless, do you think you'll be able to figure out a way to claim there's consensus for you plowing ahead to changeanything big? Hopefully two people have given at least neutral comments about something important somewhere! Worse comes to worse, you could find some stubs to delete to make yourself feel better. Conscience (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Alas, Conscience, you have revealed my plans -- all along, this survey was nothing but a sham, a cover for my secret (?) desire to change the mission and rule all of RationalWiki. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I am going to be honest here and say that this whole controversy was stupid. I can't believe we are arguing about FCP's intent. I understand that this wasn't a community effort but the results aren't binding.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Its not stupid. It's an established pattern with FCP. He can claim he wants peace and order, but he's got a history of loudly demanding attention and shaking things up. Conscience (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I get that but this survey isn't going to do that. Assuming that is his goal, it doesn't seem he will be able to get support for that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 18:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


Can we please discuss the survey?[edit]

So there's some weird fighting about stuff I don't really understand. The important thing is that the survey exists and while it exists we might as well use it to a) see what it can tell us and/or b) see what any future survey might be about. For instance we could flip the question on the mission on its head and ask "How upset would you be if this topic disappeared from the site"... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure either why folks are fighting over this either - "Person X did not participate in the survey" does not mean "The survey is invalid", and the same goes for "Person Y conducted this survey without the approval of persons X and Z". To be honest I don't think that "flipping the question on its head" is going to work; while people may not consider a subject particularly missional, most of them still won't want it deleted.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The best guideline on what people actually want on the site is the to do list. And that seems to mean lots of nazis and pseudoscience, and quite a bit on sex and race. A poll opposed by a sizeable group of users shows only that some subset of the site readership doesn't seem that bothered. Annquin (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the idea of a survey as such has merit. However, the next time around we should better discuss what questions to ask and how to ask them. The fact that surveys - even elections - have a return rate lower than 1 and some groups don't want to participate does not have to negate their usefullnes... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
You need to ask Joris Enter and Emerald City Wanderer whether someone who's been on this site for barely more than 24 hours and has zero substantive edits is entitled to comment or use the word we. This is apparently very very important to these guardians of reason. I'm simply not sure your opinion matters. Conscience (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello world[edit]

Hello world. Don't Average (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So About Israel/Palestine...[edit]

I think theoretically it fits the mission. I don't really remember the answer I gave to it. It's not too hard on paper to report the "facts", the issue with conflicts like these is that both sides have their version of facts which at times differ greatly. Both sides also have media outlets and PR machines whose entire job has been to spin the truth on the ground to the rest of the world, and they've both been at it for decades. There's no scientific consensus to point to or hard logic involved. We don't like to admit it, but "truth" is often written after the fact, in the midst of things, it is much more murky. There is a similar problem with politics "in the midst" of things, not only is it strongly influenced by the emotion of whatever time it is being reported, and trying to actively campaign for a certain candidate using the website as a platform will only lead to issues that really won't be of much consequence after the election is over. Hentropy (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

As 141 noted (whether it was here or in the Bar I don't know), I-P is indeed an interesting example of both authoritarianism and fundamentalism in action. It tends to cause enormous shitfits on this site, however, so many people aren't too fond of this (especially as the fights generally involve only a few very specific people).--JorisEnter (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)