Talk:CreationWiki

Actually, a side-by-side of the CreationWiki side-by-side at http://creationwiki.org/Creation_%28EvoWiki%29 might be interesting (though the formatting could be a problem). Or are these guys so far beyond the rational pale that it's no use responding to them?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 10:02, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to step up our efforts against them. They're not Conservapedia, and they take themselves more seriously and rationally then CP. They're more established, too. We'd gain street cred by taking them on. Let's do it.-αmεσ (historian) 12:44, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I'm not sure whether or not "outing" the identities of those contributors contravenes our community standard: 3 Personal information about other users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site.You're the lawyer though. What do you think? :-) --Bob^{bing for apples} 14:17, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Good question... Terry's volunteered it, though, so has Conservative. Karajou is obvious, so is Tmajor, etc. I don't think it's private information in that sense, since it doesn't take any sleuthing.-αmεσ (historian) 14:26, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

That said, though, do you think publishing those links is creepy? If so, I'll pull them, or you pull them.-αmεσ (historian) 14:47, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Creation Wiki Going-Ons

Inspired by Human's comment at Conservapedia Talk:End the War - but how can we know what's going on? Their recent changes are inaccessible!!! :o

Anyway, I found it vaguely amusing that they're apparently attempting to have articles on every single animal... or something...

Lame, I know, but I'm trying to kick a habit here. Uchiha^KATON! 15:26, 1 December 2007 (EST)

There are other ways than recent changes to see WIGO - can we view page histories, for example? Find controversial ones and see how they develop them? Can someone get registered (not to vandalize) just to peek "behind the scenes"? It might not quite be a WIGO like the CP one, more of a "what they think?" in more detail linked from this base article? As people compile that, we might gain more insight on what is interesting to report on (and refute!) there? human 15:46, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I would be very much in favor of this. Would we have to have someone pretend to be a creationist, get an account, and then "contribute" while just telling us things like page histories? Uh, guys, page history is visible to all :-). Also, talk pages are now visible... thanks to me :-D !αmεσ (historian) 13:21, 2 December 2007 (EST)

I see talk pages, "New pages" and page history. "Recent changes" doesn't work though.--Bob^{bing up} 13:58, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Shock!! Horror!!! CW says Richard Dawkins is a professor!! Just don't tell Andy!--Bob^{bing up} 14:27, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Idea

Would anyone like to start a refutation of pages like this on CW?-αmεσ (historian) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That would mean I'd have to actually read that drivel, right? Hmmmm human 10:07, 17 January 2008 (EST)

"...and [Groups such as the National Academy of Sciences] counter with arguments derived from naturalistic scientific research."

How dare they! NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 14:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I angries up the blood; good times.-αmεσ (historian) 14:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Dirty work is nevertheless work that must be done by someone ... until machines end up doing it for us ... if you're a technological optimist (I'm a moderate.). But what will finally bury creationism with Flat Earth, Aristotelian physics, and all of the other scientifically-disproven theories (some were real theories, others just dogmatic assertions) of the past? 74.89.212.27 (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

CreationWiki down.

The FSM strikes again! CreationWiki has been down since wednesday, probably a lot longer because google has index the CreationWiki error message. - Icewedge 03:56, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Does anybody know what actually happened to these guys?--Bob^{bing up} 04:22, 21 February 2008 (EST)

“” I am sorry to say that CreationWiki is down. Our semi-dedicated server has failed completely. As near as I can tell, an update to PHP, intended to allow a "choice" between PHP4 and PHP5, broke MediaWiki completely. You can't even do an edit-and-save without it invoking a script file a hundred zillion times. We have applied for a dedicated server and are waiting for our Web hosts to configure it for us and tell us that it's ready.--TerryHTalk 10:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

From Scorpion's talk page on CP. Genghis ^Marauding 07:51, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 13:03, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I have two theories:

1) an intelligent designer is fucking with them

2) Linus tried to "fix" them.

162.82.215.199 13:25, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Stop it with the3 nasty to Linus already! Susan^Purrrrr 13:28, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Peer review

The bit on peer review got me wondering. The CW peer review is about making sure everyone is on the same page and correctly following the line and keeping dissenting voices out. Its the type of thing PR departments at companies do, and you could call that peer review too. Peer review in scientific journals is another thing that is about showing how something is done in combination with encouraging others to do it and reproduce the results. Could it be the CW types actually think that scientific peer review is the same as public relations peer review and that there is a conspiracy of scientists to keep their ideas out? Hanlon's razor suggests that this is a better description of what is going on. --Shagie 13:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

He he, I remember that at the wp article on neanderthal, some guy with asperger's (user:rDos?) kept trying to add an EL to his "neanderthal theory" web site. He claimed it was "peer reveiwed" - because it was apparently well-received in the autism/asperger's community. He thought it meant something rather different, too. human 13:26, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Yep. And thus, every time a CW type hears the words 'peer review' they think 'scientific elders keeping people from publishing troubling findings' because thats what it means in their processes of publishing religious texts. --Shagie 13:33, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ref misentered?

The reference currently numbered 11: "CreationWiki administrator Tmajor blanks a discussion of the status, here, over the objections of another administrator."

The word "here" presumably is supposed to link to evidence supporting the sentence, but it only links to the edit page of the CreationWiki page at RationalWiki. Searching the history I found it originated with this edit and has never been fixed. 4.143.246.0 02:09, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

You are correct. It looks like someone pasted the reference in from their browser address bar, but got the wrong tab, perhaps? I "removed" it and replaced it with a "fact" tag, hopefully someone who knows what it was supposed to be can find the real reference sometime. Thanks for the tip! human 13:26, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Ridiculous articles

There are some really ridiculous articles on that site: check out this http://creationwiki.org/Flood_mechanics . Is this a parody ? It's pretty hard to tell. Heideggerian 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately no. They can't tell a hawk from a handsaw, their wind is always north north west. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all so clear! This is not even poe's law. :-) Good find.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you guffaw at their articles when so many of yours are xtra large targets for parody? MarcusCicero 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you created the template, it's just that I feel the little pic is more discrete and cute as well. So people now have two ways of expressing the internet meme "Don't feed the troll". No doubt some will prefer one and others the other.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I know yours is cute and all, but I like mine because it gets the point across. I found the other template doesn't have enough emphasis on the "not feeding" part of not feeding the troll.The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Toast created it, so I can't claim credit. :-) But, as I said, now we have two options.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On mouseover you get this:

. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No I don't. --Kels 19:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's because you don't have the magic yellow floaty box thing in your js.monobook.magic.wand.thing. Actually, neither do I (here). Totnesmartin 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Preferences → Gadgets → navigation popups. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oooo. I didn't have that set either. That is cute.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It even works for diffs: saves having to open the page sometimes. Very useful. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just playing with it now.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth it? I usually find floaty pop-ups every time I mouse over something (like the Bible verses on CP and ASK) sort of annoying. --Kels 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently my diff pop-up box shows NaN,NaN,NaN for the revision numbers. Anyone else have that problem? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I used to get that on the WIGO voting things sometimes but not on the diff pop ups. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That "Stop" template is too big & attention-grabbing, which makes it really self-defeating. If you respond to a trollish comment with a big "OMG a troll!" box template, it kindof negates the whole point of the not feeding the troll. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, those big boxes are ugly.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase Victor Borge; "Use whatever template you like the most, because I'm gonna use the one I like most."The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 19:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out their article on Buddhism. It's quite poorly written, and the the very end they shoehorned a piece about Jesus Christ into the article boasting how superior Jesus is to Buddha.

velociraptor

has anyone seen their velociraptor page? I suspect it may be a parody.--Thedoctor80 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

rw

[1]---brxbrx 18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

bumping this. our article is outdated---brxbrx 19:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nahhh, the rest of Creation Wiki isn't exactly right lol so it may as well be inaccurate about RW too!! 19:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We said they don't have an article on RW, but they do.---brxbrx 19:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I fixed that, this time. 19:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

confusing sentence

CreationWiki has a medium-sized article on the conservative-based blog, Conservapedia.

A has an article about B? Or A has an article on B's site about A? ???!!!^{— Unsigned, by: 98.220.169.103 / talk / contribs}

Rebutting Rebuttals

Some IDiots over at CreationWiki are looking for weaknesses in their rebuttals to TalkOrigin’s Index to Creationist Claims in order to fine tune them thus averting our “goal of spreading evolutionism across the internet.” Should we give them the weaknesses they’re looking for? I know of one infidel that started to do just that a while back. He gave his reasons for doing so here.--Rogo (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Student Projects

http://creationwiki.org/Category:CPCS_student_project and http://creationwiki.org/Category:NSCS_Student_Projects . Should we care? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)