Talk:Autotune

Aside from this experiment, what purpose does this article serve? -- Nx / talk 17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

it allowed me to add Category:Crime, which was good lulz. Apart from that, nothing. Somebody did this two or three years ago, inventing Khalufid's Fork for here, CP and WP. It was a clever hoax. This is a bit lame in comparison, and indeed absolutely. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reasons

I admit i'm the person who created the Autotune page. Though it seems random, there is a method to the madness. For a while, Andy's pet project here had me laughing, but after a while I began to wonder: what if there was a way to measure, objectively, the ability of an individual or group to accept new ideas. Of course, being an editor at both sites led me to personally believe that RW is more open about outside ideas than CP, but I had to test to make sure.

I thought about it for a while, then decided to test the reactions between the two sites using a method I already employed once before: dual sites. I chose the Autotune software mainly because I've been on a 'Symphony of Science' hook for a while, and the software's impact on the main stream culture, especially pertaining to music and memes. So, using what information I could find, I created an article that:

1) Provided adequate, neutral POV links. 2) Didn't hold any political/idealogical motive. 3) Was on a universal topic that is instantly recognizable.

I did the research, wrote the article and posted it on both sites to gauge the reaction of each site. I did this about 1900 last night, and hoped that the time difference would allow the site some views during the day back in the States. I woke up, did what was needed of my mission, then logged back in to review each's reaction.

Rationalwiki: A review for deletion has been placed on the article, mainly because it doesn't match the site's mission statement. The talk page reveals that it is thought to be a hoax, as in the 'Khalufid's Fork' mentioned by Totnesmartin.

Conservapedia: Burned by DouglasA. Reason: 'Creation of troublemaker/troll/liar'. I have been summarily blocked, as well, as shown Here and Here, at 12:08, 15th of April for 'being a member of a vandal site'.

To ensure this wasn't a fluke, I went back to an earlier page I made for the SchlaflyBrewery. Though not deleted, it clearly shows that Rationalwiki has interacted more with the page, as compared to a cleaning by WesleyS and a revert by Andy on Conservapedia's page.

At this time, I have come to these conclusions:

1) Though Rationalwiki scans its articles with concern to furthering its mission statement, it's reaction to new articles is more measured and calculated than that of Conservapedia. Articles here are placed under scrutiny and discussion pending their removal, while at CP the article is removed without discussion or notification.

2) Articles posted to this site are judged on their content, while at CP the author's affiliations are the primary motivation for removal, regardless of impact or knowledge gained. Here my article has been discussed. At CP, however, my membership to a 'vandal site' was all that was needed to delete the page, regardless of the information on the page.

3) Authors are given a chance to explain their actions on Rationalwiki. This post will be placed on the talk page as well as here, of course. However, I doubt Andy will even know what happened to the page unless DouglasA goes to ask for a Gold Star.

4) When pages are kept, Rationalwiki has a larger hand in their improvement than what is present at CP. Unless one of the CP Cabal works on a pet page [Abortion, Atheism, etc.] pages are rarely worked on. The Editor that cleaned my Brewery page on CP has been blocked for a while now, which leads me to doubt that any other edits will be made to the other articles unless Andy directs his troops to do so.

In closing, this was mostly a confirmation on my part. I know that i'm preaching to the choir when it comes to CP's bias, but with this personal study as to the effects of the pages for each site, I think i've found a personal as well as objective conclusion: Rationalwiki, in terms of outside ideas and users, is more openminded than Conservapedia. As shown above, this is not leaning towards any political or idealogical basis but towards acceptance.

I would post this on CP as well, but I don't want to out a sock just yet. Draw what conclusions you want as you will. Also, I don't mind if the article is deleted, as the site has served it's purpose. But maybe something on the symphony, because auto-tuned Carl Sagan is nifty. -- CodyH (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite impressed with all this and would like the article to stay - not on it's own merits but as part of the experiment. Whilst we have acres of anecdotal evidence this is much nearer to a true study in the comparison between the two sites. Maybe, now that the experiment is effectively over, the explanation should be added to the article.

It would have been even more interesting if the comparison had been CP<->WP rather than CP<->RW but I'm not sure if a suitable subject would be easy to find.

Jack Hughes (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Finding a non-existant page on WP that could be suitably edited then put on CP would take a bit more time. It would be an interesting extension of the experiment, and see where CP stands against WP in the 'open minded' department, though I think the result would be much the same. -- CodyH (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

None of the above is a good reason to keep a typo-riddled, fairly non-informative, off-mission article. If it were on-mission, I'd fix the typos and try to make it more informative, but this simply has nothing to do with RW's remit. ħuman 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Counting down to deletion... going once, going twice, sold to the "mission" templater for pi cents! ħuman 02:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

At any rate it shouldn't be in mainspace.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)