Forum:What's going on at Wikipedia

< Index | Site-related discussion

Have a WGO for Wikipedia

Some have suggested moving away from focus on Shlafervapedia. Perhaps we could have a What's Going On for a little bit more important wiki? We have many criticisms of WP, yes? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?... How exactly should we detail this? I mean, it's the largest wiki on the web. That said, I'm not a very big fan of monitoring CP, but digging for drama on Wikipedia doesn't seem very good either. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not mere drama, but scandalous bias and censorship. You know, how their "neutrality policy" prevents a scientific viewpoint. Stuff like that. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there already wikis dedicated to watching Wikipedia? Also Wikipedia is a big place. Looking at just English Wikipedia the last 500 recent changes goes back to 6 minutes ago. - π 06:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not exactly sites devoted to promoting scientific/rational viewpoints in WP articles. I'm sure we wouldn't cover everything; I don't see that as a reason not to do it. It is kinda easy to just be critical all the time when we could be working together and showing how it is done. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be for a WIGO on Wikipedia. I see it as a decent endeavor, especially with such sites as Wikitruth being defunct.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What is going on at Wikipedia

I'll tell you what's going on while you guys are shaking your miswaks at CP. I think it unfair that Wikipedia forbids companies from hiring people to edit their articles, while they welcome the religious nutjobbers to scrub their articles of any criticism. For example, they removed all the Bible verses that claim that some of Jesus' disciples would see him return "to judge the living and the dead". I put one of the verses back. It is a less known verse, which is quite damning, I think, because it refers to the the Antichrist(s) which "Jesus" said would precede his return. The official security guard apparently doesn't mind if we add a list of links to the verses. [1] ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but I doubt all of RW is gonna get behind you on your personal issue with some trivial wiki that pretends to be an "encyclopedia". ħuman 07:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Human, long time no see. I'm sure know no one here cares that Christians are falling for the same old scam over and over, "Jebus be com'n down teh mountain any minute now, I swears it"... but others may have their own concerns they could take to WGO@WP. Granted WP is nothing compared with CP, ASK, or Citizenium, but let's not make those comparisons. : ) ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Today I had to go look up "miswak" on my internet. The Wikipedia also told me there is such a thing as Islamic hygienical jurisprudence. That won't make too much of a change in my world view, thank goodness. I think it will be interesting to see people pointing out genuine places where Wikipedia's NPOV falls down. I see potential for a low SNR though, if it turns into a complainy-fest about some views not getting the weight they "deserve."

That, and it could get kind of bulky. As mentioned above, recent changes on WP scoot right along at an enormous rate of knots. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The "original research" of evaluating reliable sources

Someone once suggested that WP have a project to evaluate the reliability of sources. This was poopooed by the others. Unicow (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No Wikipedia article on RationalWiki?

Why not? Anyone up for putting one together? It would appear the main objection is the lack of "reliable sources". Jim42 (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed the main objection. Find some reliable sources that do more than mention us in passing and voila! Article time. Sophie^Wilder 10:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)