RationalWiki talk:Article of the Weak/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 July 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

My thoughts on where this will go

Some meta discussion time. My goal, once we have enough articles and votes to make it worthwhile is to create a searchable index of articles based on the criteria that you guys define. Basically a taxonomy of the internet fringe. If we get a good sized article base and votes I think this could be fascinating. A user could list all the articles that have a high "authoritarian" and "hypocrisy" score, or whatever they wished. Lots of fun statistics can be run on the voting distributions as well. So this is more than just "fun" there is some real potential to build something interesting here if we keep at it. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 23:15, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, if you can't get at least a Master's out of the database down the road, I'd be quite disappointed with you ;) ħuman 23:25, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Spot the article

(Not sure where to put this comment as there's a lot of comment scattered around about this), Is there a possibility to make it clearer which article is being reviewed and judged? There's a link at the top to the theory of evolution but it's A) not explicit that this is the article and B) it's kind of hidden amongst some text. It doesn't jump out shouting "THIS IS THE ARTICLE WE'RE GOING TO RATE!" at you. It'd also help for when the scheme takes off and has mulitple pages to have a consistent format with a title (which clearly links to the intended article) and description section (where there may be other links to relevant background infomation). Armondikov 04:17, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Go see what I did, does that help? ħuman 00:22, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it's clearer and certainly looks much better. :) I can't see anything else worth tweaking. Armondikov 08:35, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Broken links

The link to the definitions has broken since the rename. $\approx$$\pi$ 00:33, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh shit, thanks for the heads up. I can't fix it, I'll email Trent. Those should have been relative links anyway! ħuman 00:36, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

He fixed it. ħuman 16:44, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Additions

So I am not so sure that what we have now is capable of capturing as much information as it might be possible to capture. Are there additional elements of crankery that we should be looking into? Classical logical fallacies, or traits? I am not sure if the 6 qualia capture some important styles or traits such as quote mining, martyrdom, ad hominem, poisoning the well, etc. How might we adjust our program to do a better job of this? A few traits may justify adding another slider scale but others are more binary. Should we have like options to check off the presence of classic logical fallacies maybe? Thoughts? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I was thinking on vaguely similar lines - we picked the six qualia without a lot of thought -- and with CP in mind. We might want to think this through carefully. I do think martyrdom is a good one, as is logical fallacies (in general). Perhaps we should actually have fewer sliders (to keep them simple), and a bunch of binary "fill in the dots" questions/items? ħuman 19:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I am all for adjustment, and the earlier on in the project we do it the better, all of us have now had ample exposure to cranks and all cranks seem to have a lot in common. So much so that you can pretty much take an crank rant and just copy and paste whatever cause they are pushing into another rant and vice versa. So what are these common characteristics that permeate...I think we have some of them captured with the 6 traits we have picked so far, but some of those might be better left on the cutting room floor, or put up as a binary choice. Several traits I think we are missing are martyrdom and anger, as well as various common logical fallacies. I suppose the best thing to do is get lists of characteristics and try and classify them as more binary or continuous and then do the continuous ones as sliders and binary as some sort of on/off choice. Ideally we could get some other people here to help us brainstorm for traits. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Binary traits

• Logical fallacies (I think specific "common" fallacies would be better than a general cat)
• Sham quantum physics

Continuous traits

• Martyrdom
• Anger
• Incoherence

I sorta improved the section heading... to get some fricking attention 'round here! ħuman 01:35, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Another one that would be useful is "Egotism" -- When one lone kook on a website thinks he's about to singlehandedly destroy science. (Hi, Ken!) --Gulik 22:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)

AotW

Are we ever going to have new one, has anyone ever suggested one? - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 01:00, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, hopefully. All we need is an idea, and someone who wants to do the (sadly difficult) grunt work of archiving the last one. I have been lobbying for making our AotW CP's Article of the Week, unless we have something else. Are you interested in helping achieve anything along such lines? ħuman 02:17, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know CP's article of the week is sometime slightly non-fundamentalist. Although the current Latino with the angry yelling guy on the front is an interesting choice of picture. I would like something non-CP again but that means I would have to find something, so I will get back with something in a few days. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 21:32, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, some won't work well. But as a default, as a way to just have something new once in a while (which we are failing at...) it's a fallback position. The best part, is they "plan ahead" so we can look at their plans and see what's coming up that might be good to use. I am totally open to non-CP AotWs of course. ħuman 00:26, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Would it be possible to do the least amount of effort to archive the current page in order to get the process of creating a new article of the weak as soon as possible? In my experience, half of the battle is just getting the ball rolling. The longer this page sits unchanged, the greater the inertia builds, and the more likely Conservapedia is to take over the webatron. Surely there are many available choices out there. Is the only thing stopping this page from being updated the necessity that it get archived?Deathsushi 15:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

If we're including non-CP stuff, how are we defining 'article'? Does it have to be a wiki-style article, or can it include essays, blogs, website mission statements, anything else written on the net? (Not that I have a suggestion, but in case I decide for look for something suitable). weaseLOId~ 15:53, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

At Deathsushi, no, the silly obstacle is not having bothered to come up with a replacement for it yet. At Weasel, anything is fair game, although ideally it should be available on the web. ħuman 18:54, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia

Of the past 5 AOTWs, 3 have been CP articles. For the next one, can we not resort to the easy way out and use another one? Stupidity on the internet extends well beyond Conservapedia, moreover, we also have a dedicated ticker covering almost everything of interest there. We really need to be more than a site for laughing at Andy & Co. Phantom Hoover

Got any suggestions? ħuman 17:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not advocating that we change it now, I'm advocating that we use non-CP content for AOTWs. It's not as if we haven't got adequate coverage of all the funny articles on CP. Phantom Hoover

How about something on the JFK assassination. I have been watching a lot of videos on Youtube lately making some very dubious claims about LBJ. I think we could find an article written proposing some nutty theory that would be good.--Damo^Hi 11:50, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Change

We've had the same AOTW for 2 months. Are there any plans to change it? Phantom Hoover 06:43, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Yes! To what, though...? Any ideas? ħuman 15:27, 2 January 2009 (EST)

<confession> I've never even glanced at it </confession> If that (the 2 month bit) is true, then yes, or scrap it. Toast 15:37, 2 January 2009 (EST)

How about Pinochet or "Gun Control." Can't get enough of Defensive weapon of gun. ;)EternalCritic 18:14, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe athiesm? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 11:07, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Something good, sure. I just updated the Obama AOTW a bit to make it "post-erection". It's "up to date" at least until the inauguration. Let's come up with some crazy hole out there to mock in the next two weeks? ħuman 00:57, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Slider's aren't working. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 12:47, 10 January 2009 (EST)

They're working for me, but after I hit "submit", I don't get to see the average scores. --Gulik 22:46, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Worked fine for me. ħuman 23:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Proof of creationism

I did a Google search for this and these are the first two articles I found:

• Proof evolution is WRONG - number 3
• Creation and Proof for the Existence of God - number 10

For evolution is false second I got;

• Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible

On the topic of AIDS denialism

• AIDS is FAKE
• Alive and well

How about some of these for article of the week? - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 04:39, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I like the look of the "Top Ten Scientific Facts..." one, though it's long, wordy and more or less entirely irrelevant. Which sort of makes it perfect really. ArmondikoV^narchist 05:19, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Okay lets get started: RationalWiki:Article of the Weak/Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 06:44, 16 January 2009 (EST)

B.Sc./CP Name

In light of the recent private info freakout, do we want to use Conservative's real name in the intro? Also, do you think that including B.Sc. after the author's name might qualify as credential bullying, as he lacks an advanced degree? Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 08:23, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Well he always signs his name that way so I assume that is the way he likes it. As for Ken we will remove it if he complains. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 08:28, 16 January 2009 (EST)

He actually signs his name with his B.Sc.? Sounds fair to me, then. This article reads only slightly better than the Time Cube. Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 08:44, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Comment?

There doesn't seem to be any particular place to comment on the current AOTW. Actually on the article - not its selection as AOTW.  ^(Crumpets) _and butter 23:51, 16 January 2009 (EST)

The relevant article's talk page, no? TheoryOfPractice 00:00, 17 January 2009 (EST)

it hasn't got one; it's an external link.  ^(Crumpets) _and butter 00:02, 17 January 2009 (EST)

When i click on the "Article of the Weak" link on the front page I get this...and there's a comment box in the middle of the page...or am I missing something? TheoryOfPractice 00:14, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Ah thanks. Hadn't seen that.  ^(Crumpets) _and butter 00:19, 17 January 2009 (EST)

We need to fix that - the AotW is always in a subpage, so I guess we need a customized link to the there? ħuman 00:22, 17 January 2009 (EST)

It's been a week and no magic yet? Sheesh. What we need is a link to the sub-page talk page, on the sub page transcluded to AotW extension. Er, Trent?! 'Til then, click on source, paste in the sub page and click on "talk". ħuman 23:25, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The current one (13 top ten points) is here ħuman 23:26, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Public Schools are Evil!

The other day I stumbled across an article while searching for "evil vaccination satan hitler jesus", the article was titled Public Schools are Evil! and it contained a highly compressed discharge of crazy it has a terrible layout with green-on-black quote mines, and bizarre links in the middle of it.it also contained a sentence that seemed familiar in structure

"The truth is intolerant my friend. 1 + 1 = 2. Now you can ignorantly claim that 1 + 1 = 3; but you'd be wrong (and probably a product of the public school system)."

it basically touches on every spectrum of insanity one or twice. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to be an Article of the Weak Painkiller 19:19, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Nice find. We should dig into it and see how much fun it could be. It would go here if we want to start building it. ħuman 21:23, 22 February 2009 (EST)

It's pretty crazy alright. I'm a bit confused, should I start working on the brief article and the links that help with the debunking? Any debunking attempt I find seems tangled up with other accusations. All the little crazy trails are wound together in knots. The public schools support communism by denying God's word therefore inducing Humanism and sexual immorality leading America to become a totalitarian state just like the Masons want for the new world order. I swear it says these things, which should I start with? Painkiller 15:20, 23 February 2009 (EST)

What you have done so far looks like you did it right. You might want to link a few RW articles and some outside stuff if you can find it. Also, from what I skimmed there, the page is full of boilerplate crap on other subjects that they might pour onto every page. Anyway, yeah, I read what you quoted above - perhaps you could add it whole, as a "sample" of what the thing says, and link as much of it to our articles on the topics touched upon? ħuman 22:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I've added links. It's got fifteen total, with sections devoted to facts of the school system, general Christian insanity, and Conspiracy minded thinking. Thirteen of the fifteen links are internal links. I can't really think of any more at the time. Some of the links are moretenuously related to the article itself but are omnipresent on the other articles on his site that have been linked to liberally (snicker) on the article. I'm not sure if it needs any more external links. Alos, the Public education article we have here doesn't look very complete. ^{He is the} Painkiller 16:46, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Nice work. I guess maybe we should try to improve the PE article before taking this "live"? Perhaps an intercom message asking people to come and help it might be a good idea. ħuman 18:44, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Good idea, it wouldn't be smart to leave the primary rebuttal to it's premise unfinished. It's really less of a rebuttal and more of a alternative, rational perspective. A rebuttal would consist of evidence that public schools are not the devil. In the same way that the Evolution article doesn't have to mention that it doesn't condone beastiality. ^{He is the} Painkiller 19:58, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I'm calling for help. I appreciate the work you have done to set up a new AotW! ħuman 00:09, 25 February 2009 (EST)

No problem, I think the AOTW is largely underrated ^{He is the} Painkiller 15:01, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I agree. One problem - a big one - is that when people "update" it (vote, leave comments), it does not appear on "recent changes", so no one is aware that it's got a lot of activity, and that there is something new there to go read. I've talked to Trent about fixing it, but it's going to be difficult. ħuman 22:01, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure how exactly, but I would like to help in some way. Is there anything I can do to improve the quality of the "Public Schools are Evil!"AOTW? It doesn't seem like AOTWs get much more than a month of activity before becoming that link above WIGO CP that nobody reads. ^{He is the} Painkiller 19:20, 27 February 2009 (EST)

That article is so representative of the Timecube Law.--Ipatrol 15:24, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

recommended site

The Strength and Weaknesses movement's site (for Texans for a Better Science Education) would be a good AOTW. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 10:58, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I looked on the site. It had a consistent level of wingnuttery, but there was no article just a bunch of "pressing issues" and references for teachers to support teachin"Strengths and Weaknesses" ^{He is the} Painkiller 19:30, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Good find, and timely, too, I think. Maybe we/you should start building its sub-page? Do those "news" items change a lot? ħuman 20:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Hmmm... I've looked at this site before, esp. when I did the wiki entry before, and I know it has definitely changed. I suspect it's changing a lot now because of the publicity in the case, but could dwindle a bit in the coming week. The newsletter has been pretty constant this year, although seems inconsistent before that. I took their survey today--I'm sure they will love my answers and accusations of blatant push polling. Still, it's clearly a nutty site and there is a lot there. Is there a template for a AOTW? I'd be willing, although I'm a little short on time at the moment. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 22:24, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

What you do is create a subpage of AOTW (aotw/strengths and weaknesses - see previous examples), write in a bunch of text and links, and then either use a previous version of the sliders and buttons or make a new one (named after the site) to set up appropriate votingy things. I know this was a lazy response, and making an aotw is (sadly) really hard work. If you have more questions, ask & I shall endeavor to answer moar better. ħuman 23:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

This might an even better site. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 21:05, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

No harm in having two ready to go!!! Please to set up, the current AotW has been a round long enough. ħuman 23:19, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

@Sterile: The current Article of the Weak is from that website. Pick just one article and we can do that. 65.60.9.250 23:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

I found this being linked to on WorldNutDaily. It is more of an ad than an article but it is pretty reactionary. 199.33.173.1 22:18, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Found an actual article. 199.33.173.1 22:21, 6 April 2009 (EDT)