- The front page is currently going in several different directions, with many different styles conflicting.
- "According To" is one of the first things visitors see when they arrive at RationalWiki
- The front page should be easy to navigate and user friendly
- We have nothing better to do
- All Parties are Hereby Advised That:
SirChuckB has taken the bull by the horns while trying to force the horse to drink and decided to convene this discussion to come to final agreement on Front Page Rules.
- As Such:
Folowing is a list of rules suggested for setting in stone upon the front page, which specific attention focused on According To:
- According to is not a News ticker. Items should not be placed to inform others of Births, Deaths, Birthdays, Major Pop Culture Events, Minor Pop Culture Events or any other articles that are not semi directly following the established rules of Rationalwiki. In the words of Human: "Try to minimize left/right type political things unless they relate to our mission - meaning "McCain is teh stoopid" is right out, but "Obama says he consults astrologist" is fair game."
- Items should be listed in "Headline" style, much like a news site. The point is not to act as a barker for our articles "Come on over, see the amazing stupidity from the Heritage Institute, only a nickel, no waiting."
- Any items added to According to should be short and to the point. As a general rule, if it takes several lines to describe the issue, put it on the talk page. The rule in journalism is that the headline of a story should follow the three second rule: A reader should see or hear the headline and have the gist of story within three seconds.
- No extra Snark should be added under any circumstances. We are all smart people, we can make up our own jokes and laugh for oursevles. While added snark is fine for Conservapedia: WIGO, it makes our site seem very petty.
- When posting an article, ensure that the items are in good taste. Andy has the monopoly on cheapening deaths and tragedies for political gain, and we should not stoop to that level.
- Also take care to ensure that you accurately describe the content. If the article says something may happen, do not post that the article claims it will happen. Be above the dirty tricks.
- Every editor should, when faced with a questionable post, use common sense. If the item is obviously not up to par, it should be deleted. If it is borderline, simply comment out or remove to talk for discussion. After a few days, if there is no consensus to remove, the item can be replaced.
- Questions about According to should be placed on the According to talk page, not the mainpage talk. Moving the location makes it difficult to keep track of questionable material. However, general discussion about items should be considered acceptable for mainpage talk. In general, technical questions: According to talk, General discussion: Either
- Conservapedia items of any kind are BANNED from According To. This was pretty much decided last year, but sometimes things still sneak in. Unless the item is about John McCain selecting Andy Schlafly as his running mate, put it on the Conservapedia pages.
- According to is not "lets bash conservatives." As we tend left, most items will attack the right, but liberals are considered fair game if they do something stupid. In other words, if Ann Coulter says something really stupid, post it. If Al Franken says something stupid, Post It (Assuming both items fall within the rules)
- (Added by Human) There is no need for rapid change. If the "according to" section stays the same for a few days, that's fine. Ideally it should be a great resource of links to various kinds of moonbattery - potentially even a source for new articles.
- It is hereby submitted that the Conservapedia should be rewritten and moved to a different spot on the page. Most likely, visitors are here to read about Conservapedia, as every link is usually found through Conservapedia related issues. It has been suggested that the link should be something along the lines of "What is going on at Conservapedia" or "Meanwhile, at Conservapedia." Something along those lines.
- It is also submitted that the Rationalwiki slogans be cleaned up or scrapped. There are several that make little sense to anyone outside the Rationalwiki family, many that are outdated and many more that are simply strange. The idea is good, but there should be formal rules for postings as well.
Please post new suggestions, rule changes, and general bitching below this line
Thoughts on points above
Overall, I think what Chuck is requesting/suggesting makes sense, at least as far as the "according to" section. ħuman 16:57, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
You say under other suggestions: "Most likely, visitors are here to read about Conservapedia," ...... You mean here on RW? I was hoping we were aiming to be more than that. Or have I misunderstood?--Bobbing up 03:02, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
- What I mean is that most people visit here at first for Conservapedia. I know that's brought me here, and most other stories at RationalWiki:How I found RationalWiki came here from Conservapedia. My point is that if things are nice enough the first visit, they're come back and explore a little more.... that's what I was going for anyway. and thanks for fixing my spelling... late night typing. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 04:29, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
- People also come here for other reasons (Poutine recipe...) and from other places. The raw mainpage link is slowly spreading over the net. As far as our current WIGOCP link, what exactly is wrong with it? Someone who comes to rationalwiki.com main in response to a blog about a CP topic will find it pretty quickly, if they don;t just use the search box first, right? ħuman 16:57, 28 June 2008 (EDT)