Talk:Flagellum

OK

Ok, what are the rules over copyright for EvoWiki articles? I heard somewhere they had a 'non-commercial' clause - do I need to add a hatnote? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, don't we own EvoWiki? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how these things work, apparently. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd put this up, but again the links don't work. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 05:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

moving evo wiki

I kinda thought we had decided not to move evo-wiki stuff over here, since we are not really an evo wiki, and it's actually easier to write an article from scratch. Is that not still the stance? GodotGrow a vagina 04:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anything was decided, and we were certainly talking about an entirely different class of EvoWiki article at the time. Lemme check... Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we didn't decide on that. But I'm going to cut out most of what's there now, and we need some stuff on the Irreducable Complexity angle. Pitty the interwiki links aren't working, or we could make a 'for technical details, see the EvoWiki article' template rather than directing people to Wikipedia. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

==OK==:::I really like having some of this stuff around here. It's helpful. --GodotGrow a vagina 05:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hence, "referencespace". But that's a debate for another day. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 05:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're supposed to put requests here. sterile^talk 06:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It was on the todo list and I already had it in my userspace. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 06:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

the to do list is a list of requests, not a list of jobs. Why do we have this? The only mission-aspect of the flagellum is its use in the intelligent design argument. Perhaps this could boil down to a section there. Or let's get on with making a reference space and sticking this useful-but-non-mission stuff there. Sophie^{because liberals} 08:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: there is not going to be a reference space. Missionise or delete, or change RW's whole remit so that it becomes an encyclopedia. Sophie^{because liberals} 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the presence of Slovenia, state articles, various math articles, etc., does it matter? sterile^talk 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. RW is slowly turning into an encyclopedia. Get rid of all the encyclopedia stuff, that's Wikipedia's job, not ours. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the entire community agrees with you. And there always has been factual information on RW. And for the sake of debunking, an essential part of anti-anti-science, quality information is necessary. From the perpective that we can't have information here, a reference space is entirely anti-mission. sterile^talk 18:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

-::::::::::::It really isn't turning into an encyclopedia, though sure, some articles could be removed, others could use more point of view, critical review, etc. But my suggestion is to suggest which pages you think aren't necessary. (damn edit con)

Ask HBK how well that works--il'Dictator Mikal 18:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC)It is possible to create external links in mediawiki, is it not? What i'm against is articles that are simply encyclopedia entries. Yes, there must be factual information, but we shouldn't let it swamp the mission. this like this, and all the guff CUR used to do, don't help. if some fool is wrong on a website somewhere, it doesn't help to merely be correct here. We have to point out their mistakes, pick them apart, and yes the facts are a part of that. Just writing a factual info sheet doesn't advance anti-science much; we need to critique and deconstruct. Otherwise we're just a bunch of people writing a second-rate encyclopedia on our pet topics. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

When did we become "swamped" with off-mission articles? Do you have statistics to back this up or are you blowing this out of proportion --il'Dictator Mikal 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we have some simply "encyclopedia" articles. when I find them, i do a "delete vote", more often, try to edit it to add the point of view of RW. By the way, there is nothing wrong with both, as this article here has. you do the point of view first, but offer generic facts that will help. GodotGrow a vagina 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the ideal, WfG. POV and snark, then enough info to block the sewage outfall. Sophie^{because liberals} 16:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Why I wanted this article

To refute the whole thing regarding the flagellum and intelligent design. I'll be doing some research. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly why it's needed. You might (if you get bored) pull some of the more technical stuff out in favor of the "why the right uses it", "how evo answered the right's problems" type article. I'm sure you know both of these people, but Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne both have really good discussions about the flagellum. ones even I could understand, which is saying a lot. GodotGrow a vagina 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the the article completely fails to mention intelligent design. Why and when did the IDers pick the flagellum? What refutations were published. all this RW-tastic information is not here, instead all we have is a fucking encyclopedia entry. and RW is not an encyclopedia, as I'm sure you'll have gathered by now. WfG's suggestion is the way to go here. Sophie^{because liberals} 17:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The flagellum unspun

This article is excellent. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why I added it. But, I dont' really understand it. If you do, please please please explain in idiot terms, what he's saying. Our article would be much improved with a "claim" "fact" style approach, but it's so beyond what I understand, Miller's argument.GodotGrow a vagina 17:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

EvoWiki ports

Originally from: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/The_short_version_of_the_different_kinds_of_microbial_sticky-outy-bits_used_for_swimming http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Flagellin http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Spirochaete http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Flagella Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)