There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Grappling Ignorance
Seriously, do we have any framework for what people should qualify with an article? I have a blog, should I have an article? ADK writes great screeds, should he have an article? I really think we need to revisit who we grant articles for. GodotGrow a vagina 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Last year 'katz, Pops Foster, LX,and Blue purged a bunch, but they were restored. I do think there should be some threshold. TyAnnoy 21:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. d hominem 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Classic! Foster & you rock. lol
GodotGrow a vagina 21:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that was hiiiilarious while it lasted.
bomination 23:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that was hiiiilarious while it lasted.
- Classic! Foster & you rock. lol
- Maybe set a threshold on how many followers or views they have? To me, there should be more focus on pseudoscientific/creationist blogs and YouTube channels than atheist/skeptic ones. Seems more in line with the mission to me. Sam Tally-ho! 21:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
So can we kill this now? ТyBother me 01:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what the consensus is, but if this is going to stay, it should be rewritten. I fixed some minor grammatical errors, but it really isn't written well at all. Either kill it or rewrite it. Mcnamara12 (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)