Forum:Mission

< Index | Site-related discussion

New users frequently create articles which do not conform with the RW Mission. In particular making encyclopaedic entries. Countries are often the subject of these entries; usually as stubs: Luxembourg, Slovakia for instance. While I have no intention of discouraging new editors, I'd like to get some opinions. Do we delete or leave such entries? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 11:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I created the Luxembourg article because it was on the to do list. Apologies if it is not needed. --Grey (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'm just asking. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto with Slovakia Tweety (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should welcome stubs for off-mission articles. Their presence poses little danger, and we might even come up with a special template to indicate the article was an infostub or something like that. But this isn't something we've talked about a whole lot (to my knowledge anyway) so I am still very persuadable.--^talk 12:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

EC EC I thought the same thing toast.. The problem is that we already have the articles on other European Countries and all the American states. But none of them really fit the mission (or only just fit it). So it's a tough one. Also from little stubs to mighty non-mission articles grow.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've created some off-mission stubs myself, so I've no axe to grind really. If Stubs were listed somewhere we could expand them as time went by. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think entries for countries is fine, because a lot of them do relate tangentially to the missions, or at least to things we write about like international relations, economics, religion. It's good to have a basic coverage of world politics, & if a few of the country articles are (currently) just silliness, then meh so what? When people start creating articles that are waaay off mission, (like that guy who kept writing these), we just get rid of them (or move to fun, essay, whatever). It gets sticky when people try to stretch the missions, like that rusty spotted cat guy or that conspiracy nut who wanted to write about Lord Lucan & the princes in the tower. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with teh ermineoid. Countries should be allowed. Every country has some RWmissionish aspect, I suppose, but it (the mission relation) should be mentioned if at all possible. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, those articles make sense. The biggest problem I see with longer off-mission articles is that it creates maintenance issues. The more stuff we have, the more we need to maintain. If WP has a good article on an on-mission subject that's useful as a reference for one of our articles then we can just link to it. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Countries and mission

Thinking about countries and states some more maybe we should put in all of them some mention of the relative influence of creationism or science?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a little info-box template, that gauges basic things about these countries like how democratic/authoritarian, secular/religious, affluent/poor, etc. they are. Possibly with a red/amber/green traffic light system. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The democracy Index on WP might give some ideas.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How's this for a start? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. But there is another note which I'd like to see. Corruption. These guys produce an annual report on perceived corruption around the world.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Added. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, Mr Weasel. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hee! all you've got to do now is leap around every country putting it on. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, about that . . . Shall we first finalise what stats it should contain? Otherwise, there'll be twice the work in having to leap around every country putting it on & then leap around every country again updating it. Brainstorm here or on the template talkpage. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the missions are: 1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. 2. Analyzing and refuting crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. With regard to (1.) we could hope the education would reduce anti-science and perhaps crank ideas(2). Level and quality of democracy (and probably corruption) would be in (3) authoritarianism and level of religious belief is the only surrogate I can think of for fundamentalism. I don't think we need "GDP" and I'm not sure about "development". --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are often correlations between levels of authoritarianism & corruption and the relative wealth or poverty of a country (or its rich/poor split). That's the point of including wealth indicators. GDP isn't a very easy reference to look at unless you've studied economics. Human Development Index is a composite rating based on poverty levels, education & life expectancy, so might be more useful. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Countries

Just for interest, I've listed all the UN member states here. Note: Vatican's not there 'cause it's not a member, just an observer. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Add relevance

Add a section ==Local interest== and list suitable RW material pertaining to the country therein? - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Add this section to what? - π 08:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To the otherwise not particularly on-topic articles. c.f. Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes it in a coupla sentences, points interested readers at Wikipedia and lists a few examples of sceptical interest - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)