RationalWiki talk:Websites

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Social networks[edit]

What about social networks like http://www.richarddawkins.net/social/ ? User:Ttony21/sig2 21:58, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

It really is just a subpart of richarddawkins.net so if you add the parent address that would be enough. Or alternatively you could start a forums section and put it there. - User 22:00, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Are those science fiction sites really in line with our missions? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:44, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

At risk of becoming the most hated person on this wiki, science fiction=pseudo-science, it is completely against our mission. - User 22:55, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
Most of us "like" scifi. However, it has, close to what you say, nothing to do with our mission. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:57, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
How about the for lulz, especially ED which isn't funny it is just shit. - User 18:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
I saw that being deleted, and agree. Pointless. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:16, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, so why do we have articles on each of those sites? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:51, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Bring that up on their talkpages. The ED article isn't particularly flattering, it does look odd that we endorse it here and trash it on its page. - User 20:01, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
My understanding was that part of the point of these two articles was to list websites that we have mentioned on RationalWiki, & link to the content about them. The Onion has a lot of content satirising the American religious right, so seems quite on mission, & Uncyclopedia has quite a lot of content about CP etc. Don't really care about ED, I just added it to go with UP, but it's already on webshites so doesn't necessarily have to be here too. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:44, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Okay put it back if it is essential. Maybe we need a clearer preamble on the point of these lists, I always thought of them as a sort meta-further reading list. - User 20:46, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
But snark accounts for a lot of what we do. How is it off-mission to link to snarky sites? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:51, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Yeah true. How were they listed before? Maybe just call them satire or something. - User 21:03, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Come to that what is Human's website contributing to our mission? - User 18:09, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Many articles on things like tolerance, thinking rationally about strange things, off the top of my head. I think songs like "Believe" are fairly on-mission. But feel free to delete it (and the section?) if you must. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:16, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
I was just wondering if that was a precedent for everyone to put up their on missionish but non-blog website (not that I have one but if others do). - User 19:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, that was what I was thinking. Not many will have them, of course, but I'd expect a few. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:26, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


I don't think it's the same site it once was.--Krejtalk 01:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, they used to redirect here. Peter mqzp 01:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bigotry wiki[edit]

Would bigotry.sashaweb.net, which makes fun of bigotry, qualify?

It could go under sexism since there don't seem to be better categories, but I would think racism would be better. –Inquisitor Sasha 02:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


Holy fucking shi'ite, this is terrible. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


I used this site a while back as part of a debae class. Should I put it anywhere? One con of it is their stated consfor vaccines seem to have been lifted straight from the antivaxxers' packets. TGW 05:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)