RationalWiki talk:Proposed Article of the Weak/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 16 May 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.

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

Proposal

WIGO has been one of the more successful things we have done at RW. I think a lot of that has to do with the easy two-way interaction with our users that doesn't require knowing mediawiki or even account. Also the dynamic content keeps people coming back. In order to expand upon this success and offer other fun areas of the site here is a proposal for an "Article of the weak." Basically, every week we pick a CP article, offer resources that can be used to counter its extremism and then open it up to classification and comments by anyone. I have programed a back in for voting on article qualities and also provided a commenting system that is similar to blogs in the hope that it might encourage lurkers to offer feedback more readily.

At the end of the week the article can be archived and a new one brought in. Hopefully, over time we will build up a library of CP articles, comments and a consensus on what kinds of qualities the article exemplifies. I can then set up a backend for a search function that will allow people to look up articles that are "high on fundamentalism and reality denial" or maybe "hypocrisy and fear of other people."

So I think the infrastructure is about ready, what we need now is more general community feedback. Please let me know what you think. Most importantly any specific feedback on design, functionality, wording or procedure will be helpful. tmtoulouse ^beset 14:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I heartily approve of the idea, Big T. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

As I commented while voting, you should consider adding a sixth bar for "awful language skills" (though you may want to word that better than I just did : ) ). But then again, almost every article would be above sixty. Also, you may want to add an expandable/minimizable "definition" under each quality we're voting on, to clearly define what to look for when judging a particular quality. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

How about a note to that effect? "We considered adding 'poorly written' to the voting bars, but..."? ħuman 16:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Structuring

Down the road, this should be a bunch of sections, each one a different potential article of the weak, with no need for vote bars or comment boxes. Each section should then have its own discussion section here. Ones that get "approved" on the talk page get queued to get put in the "article" tags at RationalWiki:Article of the Weak. Sound about right? ħuman 16:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Detail comments

• It should say the scale is one to a hundred somewhere. ħuman 16:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

• The text from "Take a look..." on should be in the template, not in the text in the "article" tags.ħuman 16:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Explanation

• You say: I have programed a back in Should that be "back-end"?
• Might it be better to link the test example page to an single (small) Cp article so that people could get a better idea on the voting idea. It confused me a bit on what I was "voting" on. In fact it's just a test to see if the voting program works, but I don't think it's that clear.--Bob^{bing up} 16:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

1. Yes that's what he meant.

2. You mean make it so we actually go read it and the saner versions? ħuman 16:58, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

No, I mean so that people can actually try voting for something real and - well - give feedback on that.--Bob^{bing up} 10:27, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

The SPAM button

I hope it is possible to revert and show a message marked as SPAM, or some nasty vandal could decide that no comment by anybody is better. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 18:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Only sysops see the spam button. tmtoulouse ^beset 18:48, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Moving forward

I would like to move on this idea, rather than just let it rot. Let us get it at least out there and see what we can do with it. Can we select an article for our first one? Set it up where we are going to have it and convert this article to proposed future ones? What changes to the software need to happen? tmtoulouse ^beset 11:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

I made two comments above under "detail" something. Also, way above, I redlinked a suggested title for the active AotW. ħuman 21:57, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Under "Denial of Reality" - reality shouldn't be capitalized. Consider adding section six, "Poorly written" or some such. ħuman 22:00, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Done, done and done. tmtoulouse ^beset 22:33, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Added Incoherency as an option to vote on and I made it so the "consensus" vote doesn't appear till the user has voted. Anything else? tmtoulouse ^beset 22:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, pop up boxes over the voting topics describing them? ħuman 22:46, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Blegh, pop up boxes? That's like another couple of days or more of coding, can't we just link them? tmtoulouse ^beset 22:47, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Hehe... do you really think this should be 1-100? surely 0-10 makes more sense? And, yes, we could just link I suppose... to descriptive sections below the comment boxes? Oh, and there a place where peons like myself can edit the text in the "program"? ħuman 22:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

The text in the program resides only in the extension, I can change the text easily enough if there are changes that need to be made but it is not "wiki" editable. I was thinking we could make the descriptions for the voting criteria separate wiki pages that could be linked and edited, like sub pages of wherever this winds up. tmtoulouse ^beset 22:53, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Can you make the text a transcluded template? Trouble with the links going to other pages is the delay - if they were sections at the bottom (another template...) with "back" buttons, they'd be easy to flip to and come back. That's why it occurred to me to do it that way. 0-10??? ħuman 23:08, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I will give it a shot. tmtoulouse ^beset 23:09, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay intro is in a template and the description template now loads so they are editable. 0-10 really? I kinda liked the 1-100 gives a nice spread for statistical analysis if we get enough votes. Some nice curves. tmtoulouse ^beset 23:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I find the 1-100 is just overkill - would anyone really fine tune a 6 or 7 to "66" do you think? And the average can carry one or two decimals for "detail".

You can link the vote bar headers exactly as they are now. ħuman 23:29, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

The description template isn't 'cluding properly - the first header isn't "headering" - stray colon, perhaps? ħuman 23:33, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Change "Vote" to "Rate"? ħuman 23:40, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

New feature ;)

How about up/down voting on each comment? BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHA you know you want to! ħuman 23:38, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I added up/down voting for each comment. 24.36.227.74 00:52, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Cool, I see we are now working at the "live" version... I made a comment there about those pretty arrows. ħuman 01:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Going live

Let us unilaterally pick the first one, write it up, and get it in place in order to get the ball rolling. tmtoulouse ^beset 23:08, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, we could simply use the boilerplate on the test page, right? "evolution"? Then the "article" becomes the workspace for developing new "intros" for the future, and this talk page mostly discusses them. ħuman 23:09, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Boiler plate is fine by me. tmtoulouse ^beset 23:24, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Are we going to call it RationalWiki:Article of the weak/Weak, or spell "week" correctly? RW:Conservapedia Article of the Weak? Lessus decide, eh? ħuman

I kind of liked "weak" but I am not going to make an issue if you think week is better. RW:Conservapedia Article of the Weak seems fine to me. tmtoulouse ^beset 23:46, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Nah, I like "weak" too, but we might want to get input. We can always move it of course. OK, RWCPAotWeak it is then ħuman 23:51, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Let us move our "test" to RationalWiki:Article of the Weak/test. tmtoulouse ^beset 01:05, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

We don't really need to - I entered the code at the "live" title - it will actually work anywhere... ħuman 01:08, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I created it as a "Sandbox" so that the "live" version isn't filled up with our testing stuff. 24.36.227.74 01:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I eventually saw that. You'll need to zero out "evolution" again, because I mucked with it just as you were changing to the sandbox. ħuman 03:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)