|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Cseministry
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Great, so this sill "YouTube cull" thing managed to get something that is directly related to Kent Hovind. So, those notability criteria? Want to sort those out BEFORE mass deleting everything? 
moral 09:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Notability!? Then we'd be *GASP* just like
conservawikipedia! Seriously, I don't think Forum:Notability? went anywhere. You can try resurrecting it. ТyTalk. 12:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)- Notability is a stupid concept for this site to use because we thrive on the stuff that isn't actually notable. Project Blue Beam? Only a few professional conspiracy nuts even know about it. Flat Earth? Not be taken seriously because no one really believes it. Poe's Law? Wasn't in print until recently. The point of RW is to take something apart in a rational manner, not decide whether it's worth doing it. If there's a bad argument, it serves as a demonstration of a bad argument. Period. It doesn't matter if 10, 100, or 100,000 people follow it. The content should be judged on the strength of its quality, not its quantity and therefore any guideline on "notability" will run up against very worthwhile causes that otherwise fail to meet this criteria. Notability should be for Wikipedia, which we are not. moral 12:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've just copied that into Forum:Notability? as it turned out longer than expected. moral 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've just copied that into Forum:Notability? as it turned out longer than expected.
- Notability is a stupid concept for this site to use because we thrive on the stuff that isn't actually notable. Project Blue Beam? Only a few professional conspiracy nuts even know about it. Flat Earth? Not be taken seriously because no one really believes it. Poe's Law? Wasn't in print until recently. The point of RW is to take something apart in a rational manner, not decide whether it's worth doing it. If there's a bad argument, it serves as a demonstration of a bad argument. Period. It doesn't matter if 10, 100, or 100,000 people follow it. The content should be judged on the strength of its quality, not its quantity and therefore any guideline on "notability" will run up against very worthwhile causes that otherwise fail to meet this criteria. Notability should be for Wikipedia, which we are not.