Talk:Ancient Code
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Another crank website — so what?[edit]
Just a pre-emptive question of why RW needs an article on this particular crank website. What makes it especially interesting? I'm simply trying to head off an early Article for Deletion template being added as the current version doesn't suggest why this exact pseudohistorical website merits a (dis)honourable mention at RW. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to be missional at the very least, but I guess the question is whether or not it's noteworthy, and it does not seem to be. Maybe we should have a catch-all article of sorts to catalog all the miscellaneous crank sites not worthy of their own articles? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking whether it had some unique crankery it pushed or some interesting people behind it (e.g. this Petricevic dude) or whether it formed an integral part of a web of sites (e.g. the red links) and persons. If so, then some sort of omnibus article including all sites/persons is probably the way to go. I don't think that a catch-all article would work because it would just be a never ending list of crank sites and they simply keep multiplying (Jason Colavito has pointed out one major reason: the massive amount of plagiarism and outright cut-and-paste jobs occurring within this field of pseudohistory means you can crank out books and websites in no time). While I agree that RW shouldn't have a strict notability criterion, some due diligence about not including every crank and his dog is needed - and so far we're doing it right here; discourse and reasoned judgement FTW! ScepticWombat (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
- On this, we agree. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I have no real idea (yet) if there is some truly unique crankiness to this site that makes it especially noteworthy. Indeed, I was not aware of the RationalWiki Unique Crankiness Criteria. Many of the sites already mentioned on RW surely has a lot of copy/paste between them, if that is a criterion. Indeed, that is one of the things quite typical of the genre; they typically brew their own crank-soup on various material already out there. Also, since I am new to RW I do not yet have a proper feel of the place, whether it is a deletionist place or more RW is not paper. In my mind it would be good to have somewhere as a referrence to various crank sites, "documenting the full range of crank ideas", to which I thought I'd make a small contribution. If it is not welcome do tell, and I'll stay away. -- Egil (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi again Egil. Don't be despondent; think of my questions and suggestions more like pointers on how to avoid getting an AfD sticker slapped on your brand new article. As I've already written, I started this thread to pre-empt some impatient editor doing exactly that. Some more content and an entertaining writing style might also save it from oblivion. Keep up the good work. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I have no real idea (yet) if there is some truly unique crankiness to this site that makes it especially noteworthy. Indeed, I was not aware of the RationalWiki Unique Crankiness Criteria. Many of the sites already mentioned on RW surely has a lot of copy/paste between them, if that is a criterion. Indeed, that is one of the things quite typical of the genre; they typically brew their own crank-soup on various material already out there. Also, since I am new to RW I do not yet have a proper feel of the place, whether it is a deletionist place or more RW is not paper. In my mind it would be good to have somewhere as a referrence to various crank sites, "documenting the full range of crank ideas", to which I thought I'd make a small contribution. If it is not welcome do tell, and I'll stay away. -- Egil (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- On this, we agree. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking whether it had some unique crankery it pushed or some interesting people behind it (e.g. this Petricevic dude) or whether it formed an integral part of a web of sites (e.g. the red links) and persons. If so, then some sort of omnibus article including all sites/persons is probably the way to go. I don't think that a catch-all article would work because it would just be a never ending list of crank sites and they simply keep multiplying (Jason Colavito has pointed out one major reason: the massive amount of plagiarism and outright cut-and-paste jobs occurring within this field of pseudohistory means you can crank out books and websites in no time). While I agree that RW shouldn't have a strict notability criterion, some due diligence about not including every crank and his dog is needed - and so far we're doing it right here; discourse and reasoned judgement FTW! ScepticWombat (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC))