RationalWiki talk:Monthly RW

But it's December now - does it 'update' at the start or end of the month? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea. ^narchist 10:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're big enough for it yet. Blue (is useful) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs better editorial section. Тy^talk 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No reason why the mentions section can't be started though - we do get a few here and there. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 19:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Au contrare. I think we're big enough for things to slide under the radar of users very easily. At that stage, we're big enough to benefit from this sort of digest. Although, that said, we perhaps don't have the scale to run it yet, as the people who write it would be, well, the same as the people who read it. We don't yet have the dynamic of content generators and content consumers that would make it otherwise. ^theist 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Next level

Ought we move this to some sort of project page and start a society now that at least one part seems to be useful? Blue (is useful) 01:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that Society with a capital S? And, for that matter, is it called the Obscure Goat Monthly or the Monthly RationalWikian? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 02:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Monthly RationalWikian Society for the upkeep of Obscure Goat Monthly, which is updated continuously but archived each month. Blue (is useful) 02:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Doable, doable. What's the 'administrative report' supposed to have in it? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 02:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dunno exactly, I figured I'd think of something when the time came. Probably stuff like the mod and board elections, policy discussions, etc. Blue (pester) 02:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive or revive?

Page is untouched since 15 June 2012‎ -- over 4 years. RW:MENTIONS has become a page on its own. Nobody ever updates "administrative report" or "content report" -- though the former could make RW more transparent (maybe) and the latter could get more attention to new pages (maybe). In general: is RW important enough to merit its own newpaper, esp. when nobody wants to write it? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If enough work and time is put into it, then RW could actually have a nice, funny paper. But we need the will and support to do it. Maybe we could do a poll asking the community if they'd help. Maybe ask for solid commitments for a few people to edit the newspaper. That would be a good way to gauge whether we have the actual will to upkeep a paper. PBfreespace (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)