RationalWiki talk:What is a RationalWiki article?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Russel equals Goedel[edit]

Could it not be said that Russell's Paradox and Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem are essentially the same thing? They both highlight the weird effects you get when applying something to itself.

A simple example of this occurred to me when thinking about the word 'quintosyllabic', which is itself quintosyllabic, having five syllables. So it is self-describing if you apply it to itself. What about the word 'self-describing', or even better 'non-self-describing' (no loss of generality by allowing hyphens). Is the word 'non-self-describing' itself non-self-describing? If it is then it isn't (by definition). If it isn't then it is (by definition).

But what does this imply? Most words are non-self-describing, so it's a perfectly reasonable adjective. Does it not just imply that there are some things that cannot sensibly be applied to themselves? The End. — Unsigned, by: Subudler / talk / contribs

Unilateral changes[edit]

I don't think that this page should be changed by individual editors without previous discussion on-site. I don't particularly disagree with any of the recent changes, but this page - which is a fundamental description of what the site is about - should not really be materially edited without some reference to the community.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Here are the changes in question. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes? I very specifically said that I don't disagree with them. My objection is that they were made unilaterally and without comment, explanation or agreement here. It's clearly not the changes I'm objecting to - it's the lack of procedure or involvement of the community.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. What would you like to discuss about them?
I made those specific changes because of people who thought putting dick jokes at the top of cover articles was a good idea, or writing long sections of unfunny "snark" were a good idea, and using this as justification, when they clearly weren't good ideas. That is, due to an actual problem.
I should point out that that bit wasn't created by a detailed bureaucratic procedure. And wasn't particularly well written in its original. I don't think we have an obligation to preserve past rambling as if it was brought down from a mountain by George Washington. - David Gerard (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also fine with the changes. @Bob: Just put the link there for posterity. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I should note also: nothing is changed in the intent of the section. It's a change in emphasis, specifically because of the section being used as an excuse for crappy and puerile additions - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
EC.As I have twice stated I have no problem with the changes themselves. My point is that such changes should not be made without, at minimum, some justification on this page for such changes.
EC. Ideally, changes to things which potentially refer to fundamental questions about how the site is run should first be suggested before being unilaterally changed. If nobody objects then then no problem.
EC. But simply changing them without comment or discussion with the community sets an unfortunate precedent.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Try having a discussion before doing things.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


I made some edits without asking first. The changes:

  1. Merged the "Snarky Point of View" and "Scientific Point of View" into one POV section. Added the line: "Wikipedia has NPOV: Neutral Point of View. RationalWiki has SPOV. Depending on who you ask, this means two things:"
  2. Added a new "How to help" header with [1] RationalWikifying an article and [2] RationalWiki articles on living people.

Seem alright? I can undo if not. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What the[edit]

Where did the "RationalWiki has a sense of humor" subheader go?! Not only has it been used for years on innumerable talkpages — it was legitimately useful, IMO (as a subheader if nothing else!). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Another point[edit]

Some topics date.

There is a flurry of interest in (whatever) which some talking head/(inverse) stopped clock/not even wrong - and then the topic disappears after a couple of days; others will tick over and flare up intermittently. Anna Livia (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious[edit]

Does this "snarky point of view" thing mean that, by claiming it's just humor, you guys think you can insult people and get away with it? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I think you need to go back and read those two paragraphs again. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Would you please elaborate what exactly you think I didn't understand? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
It's quite normal to "get away" with insulting people, as that is entirely legal. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Legal to insult people? I'm sure the judge will love that defense. Well, I guess you answered my question. Thank you. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
What a twat! I'm aware that's an ad hominem. But it's not illegal. Spud (talk)
Fuck off, Mike. Oxyaena Harass 11:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Now that's a rational comment. Is that the level of discussion that I should expect on this wiki? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs