RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $720Goal: $3500

Forum:Need irc club

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

seeking to inspire rationalwikians into participating into irc channel for greater durations. wrong place to post perhaps, but need attention to plight of users who feel urge for synchronous communication.FAMAS (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally people have just chatted on-wiki. What benefit do you think IRC would give? FuzzyCatPotato of the Unrefined Doppelgängers (talk/stalk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The ability to sniff peoples' IP addresses? :D Chat logs to quote-mine? Engaging users in rapid-fire "debate"? Etc, etc.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotatoSynchronous communication benefits are written in detail in the wikipedia article. small version: centralized space where all participants can see and be notified of user's posts, which in wiki+forum system has to be specifically posted in the individual talkpage or has to have users individually mentioned via template:user. there is also need for a tinychat room for rationalwikians, catering to those who are typing-impaired but not voice-impaired. risk of ip harvesting minimized via implementation of cloak. quote-mining has been previously done via logs of talkpages and forum entries and edit histories, displayed by uncyclopedians and encyclodramaticans. gish gallop was also done as history data displays. this user requests all to engage in non-jocular commenting in this threadFAMAS (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Facebook group do fine enough for this? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato and AndYourFoesShallRejoice...facebook group is asynchronous communication with requirements for all participators to have a signed-up account which is negatory for an unknown number of users who wish to not utilize facebook or any sign-up required systems for purposes of communication as well as the post-2013 rule of all facebook accounts represent the real person in real life with no nicks and proxy names being allowed. however, all the arguments can be cut short by easily participating in the irc channel with either webclient or downloaded irc client or negating the invite altogether, which choice will be taken is upto the individual user's preference. this user feels the urge to call rationalwikians to irc.FAMAS (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Go away! Pippa (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I really don't think we need this. There's a Facebook group and ye olde Saloon Bar. Also FAMAS, please stop posting links to this page on other people's talk pages.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding a chat service, maybe something like Slack rather than IRC however? A successful project would need both RW sponsorship (for adding a sidebar link etc), a strong founder and set of mods and a set of people willing to get involved to boot strap it at first. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing stopping people from setting up and publicising an (unofficial!) #rationalwiki, or even multiple channels. (c.f. the several unofficial Facebook groups) - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Gerard and Deku-shrubthis user advises all to participate in #rationalwiki at irc.freenode.net if possible, disregarding any lack of activityFAMAS (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know what IRC means...Tfaddict 16:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither did I. Had to Google it first. --JorisEnter (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I was done with IRC in 2002. I have no need/time to go back. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

this user posts requests to rationalwiki users with an expectation of unknown level of reality that rationalwikians will participate in synchronous communication infrastructure, in this context, referring to irc, for purposes of chat with greater flexibility as to the nature of chatrooms having multiple users in one place to see posts by any chatters without the chatter needing to individually post to seperate user's space, which is a major drawback of asynchronous communication system, in this context, referring to forumsFAMAS (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you just said, nor do I care to waste time figuring it out. You are the only one who wants IRC, no one else does. Talk pages work well enough.CorruptUser (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, I was done with IRC in 2002. I have no need/time to go back. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. Join wiki & immediately insist everyone go somewhere else to chat.
  2. Spam everyone's talk pages with the same message.
  3. Use awkward verbiage & refer to oneself always in the third person
  4.  ???
  5. PROFIT!!! WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the user is one of the Unsullied. That, or it's Julius Caesar reborn.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Already done?[edit]

If I recollect correctly, there was, probably 5 years ago or so, an IRC channel somewhere. Died out thru' lack of use(?) Pippa (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There was indeed. Populated mostly by people I did not recognize from RW, amusingly enough. Some nice folks, though. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)