RationalWiki talk:Guide for individuals or companies we cover
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
nobsdon't bother me 16:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)So Rationalwiki has a definite point of view, not just a hosting facility. Interesting. nobsdon't bother me 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- A "pangram" is a sentence or phrase containing all the letters of a particular alphabet. A perfect pangram contains each letter only once, resulting in a phrase that has as many letters as the alphabet itself: 26 in the case of the English alphabet. Probably the most famous pangram is the phrase "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog", which contains 35 letters. A 26-letter pangram is tricky to construct, and usually has to resort to obscure words or abbreviations. Among the best examples are "Jocks fix BMW, vend quartz glyph" and "NBC glad. Why? Fox TV jerks quiz PM". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, what? Yes RationalWiki has a point of view is this news? RationalWiki can not have a "hosting facility" it is not an entity capable of suck things as ownership of real world goods or services. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Brandt & Siegenthaler once upon a time were very pissed off, claiming WP published false and damaging information about them. WP hid behind Sec 230 of the Internet Decency Act, claiming the WikiMedia Foundation was a non profit web hosting facility, and not a publisher. This seems to be a different track RW is taking from the WikiMedia Foundation model. nobsdon't bother me 21:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP does not equal WMF, RW does not equal RWF. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, WMF owns the WP tradename, and the lawyers for both tend to be the same people; and ArbCom was established to do the WMF Board of Trustee's bidding. nobsdon't bother me 22:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again irrelevant they are separate entities. The website can do something different than the foundation and the foundation can do stuff separate from the website. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- The WMF Trustees have full control over WP. WP repeatedly strongly emphasizes (a) it is not a publisher of origianl thought, and (b) NPOV. So WP can claim it is not the source of statements like, Ken Doll is gay, or AndyS is crazy. WP demands W:RS, WP:V sources for the claim, and under NPOV, a countervailing opinion. But I've heard twice now, in 24 hours, about "Rationalwiki POV" (once above,v here's the other). Apart from provisions and requirements for 501(c)3 status, this does seem to be a marked difference between the RWF & the WMF. nobsdon't bother me 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your equivocating between the Foundation and the website, substituting back and forth between to draw a false conclusion. Nothing terribly new there in your rhetorical style. But ultimately I still have no clue what your point is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- So RW intends to become a non-neutral publisher of original thought which may or may not be potentially damaging to a person or companies name and reputation. This point of view is not governed by any rational analysis or argument, but rather a concensus of the mob (the cite you guys put in WP years ago says as much [1]. Ok, good luck in your battles ahead. nobsdon't bother me 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Our realities do not seem to over lap. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Only at Kelly's Brew Pub, maybe. It's within walking distance of RW Foundation's headquarters. nobsdon't bother me 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know how many RW members there are anywhere near the RWF headquarters? Only one that I know of, if toulouse already went back to Canada. That's a random aside, however let me spell this out for you: RWF's goal is to provide a forum only, which does not necessarily indicate the views and opinions of the RWF itself, and over which it claims no editorial control. RationWiki (not the foundation, but the content and site itself) is the aggregate and collective input and work of the various editors of the wiki itself operating as individuals in their individual capacity. The collective choice of the RW community (not the foundation) is to call bullshit bullshit, and not be afraid, or intimidated into backing down from telling the truth. Also, to use excessive amounts of satire and humor to keep things interesting and appealing. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 13:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- So the assertion is made the RWF does not exercise editorial control over content that some persons or companies may consider damaging. Let's look at wp:Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Wikimedia_Foundation_resolution. Agrieved parties, per an official WP policy, have direct and immediate recourse to the Wikimedia Foundation. nobsdon't bother me 16:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- But what does that have to do with us? The RWF model is different from the WMF, the only time Foundation officials intercede with content is to protect its legal interest. Individuals are free to contact the RWF, if the RWF feels that content is a violation of law it can remove it from the site. Or in the event of an actual lawsuit or court order it would be RWF officials that made changes. Beyond that the RWF merely provides for the infrastructure of the site and takes no active interest in content, content disputes, or community management. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- So here it says, "The Foundation offers no editorial control over any of the content" and you just said the RWF can intercede to protect its legal interest. I assume the mob would not be able to challenge trustees. nobsdon't bother me 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Foundation owns the site, and the Trustees ultimately manage the Foundation. That ultimately means that the Trustees can do anything they want with the site. Even converting it into young earth creationism wiki. Which is why the election of Trustees is important, and why even people that don't care about the meta should atleast care about this point. It is the current policy of the Foundation to not intercede with the site, except when we have a legal obligation to do so. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the key point here is: the RWF will only intercede in content when there is a legal obligation to do so. Most clearly this means by court order, but it can also apply to such patently illegal content that a court order is unnecessary. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- So here it says, "The Foundation offers no editorial control over any of the content" and you just said the RWF can intercede to protect its legal interest. I assume the mob would not be able to challenge trustees. nobsdon't bother me 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- But what does that have to do with us? The RWF model is different from the WMF, the only time Foundation officials intercede with content is to protect its legal interest. Individuals are free to contact the RWF, if the RWF feels that content is a violation of law it can remove it from the site. Or in the event of an actual lawsuit or court order it would be RWF officials that made changes. Beyond that the RWF merely provides for the infrastructure of the site and takes no active interest in content, content disputes, or community management. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- So the assertion is made the RWF does not exercise editorial control over content that some persons or companies may consider damaging. Let's look at wp:Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Wikimedia_Foundation_resolution. Agrieved parties, per an official WP policy, have direct and immediate recourse to the Wikimedia Foundation. nobsdon't bother me 16:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know how many RW members there are anywhere near the RWF headquarters? Only one that I know of, if toulouse already went back to Canada. That's a random aside, however let me spell this out for you: RWF's goal is to provide a forum only, which does not necessarily indicate the views and opinions of the RWF itself, and over which it claims no editorial control. RationWiki (not the foundation, but the content and site itself) is the aggregate and collective input and work of the various editors of the wiki itself operating as individuals in their individual capacity. The collective choice of the RW community (not the foundation) is to call bullshit bullshit, and not be afraid, or intimidated into backing down from telling the truth. Also, to use excessive amounts of satire and humor to keep things interesting and appealing. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 13:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Only at Kelly's Brew Pub, maybe. It's within walking distance of RW Foundation's headquarters. nobsdon't bother me 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Our realities do not seem to over lap. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- So RW intends to become a non-neutral publisher of original thought which may or may not be potentially damaging to a person or companies name and reputation. This point of view is not governed by any rational analysis or argument, but rather a concensus of the mob (the cite you guys put in WP years ago says as much [1]. Ok, good luck in your battles ahead. nobsdon't bother me 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your equivocating between the Foundation and the website, substituting back and forth between to draw a false conclusion. Nothing terribly new there in your rhetorical style. But ultimately I still have no clue what your point is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- The WMF Trustees have full control over WP. WP repeatedly strongly emphasizes (a) it is not a publisher of origianl thought, and (b) NPOV. So WP can claim it is not the source of statements like, Ken Doll is gay, or AndyS is crazy. WP demands W:RS, WP:V sources for the claim, and under NPOV, a countervailing opinion. But I've heard twice now, in 24 hours, about "Rationalwiki POV" (once above,v here's the other). Apart from provisions and requirements for 501(c)3 status, this does seem to be a marked difference between the RWF & the WMF. nobsdon't bother me 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again irrelevant they are separate entities. The website can do something different than the foundation and the foundation can do stuff separate from the website. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, WMF owns the WP tradename, and the lawyers for both tend to be the same people; and ArbCom was established to do the WMF Board of Trustee's bidding. nobsdon't bother me 22:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP does not equal WMF, RW does not equal RWF. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Brandt & Siegenthaler once upon a time were very pissed off, claiming WP published false and damaging information about them. WP hid behind Sec 230 of the Internet Decency Act, claiming the WikiMedia Foundation was a non profit web hosting facility, and not a publisher. This seems to be a different track RW is taking from the WikiMedia Foundation model. nobsdon't bother me 21:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
SPOV is no longer meaningful[edit]
Discussion: role of SPOV. There have been various discussions around the wiki. Can we finally find a place to consolidate and formalize our what I view to be an excuse for shitty scholarship and namecalling before I write a bot to edit war aspies into submission? {{SUBST::User:Nutty_Roux/sig}} (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)