Talk:Liberapedia

I changed "not serious" to "not very active". Some would argue that not all of our content is serious either.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 06:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Is Great Leader gone?

Great Leader not make edit sense 16 September 2007. Great Leader not respond to emails. What should we do about Great Leader? (we need him) Ajuk no want to phone him and me to shy. In short, Great Leader has been missing for too long now.

Never mind, great leader back. By the way, guess who was on liberapedia a few minutes ago! --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 19:24, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Minor Follower of Great Leader needs to have more confidence in Great Leader. It's not like he went and dueled Andrew Schlafly in a back alley somewhere. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

MINOR FOLLOWER?!??! Haha. --~ Elassint ^Hi! 09:23, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Err?

I really wonder why someone would base their opinion of a site just because someone who APPEARS to be from it starts some lame edit war? --12.75.67.9 00:23, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Just doing things to make it harder for luser trolls to "rollback". human 00:31, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I agree with the edit warrior. This really should be left the way 12.something makes it. It's a lot better than it looks. -- Ryan T. 00:51, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Perhaps bunchanumbers could come here to the talk page and discuss their ideas, instead of edit warring? human 13:14, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I've added Entry point because Google puts this article on the first page when users look for Liberapedia. Proxima Centauri 05:43, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Interesting, it was about 18th or so when I did that search. Oh, I guess that is the first page... but the real definition of "entry point" is hard for us normal editors to determine - Trent actually uses the logs to see where people are heavily arriving into the site from links. ħuman 16:37, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

trivial news

"Old Liberapedia may –or may not- be falling apart. [1] "

I moved this here to discuss. Apart from truth value as written being "1" ("may or may not" covers all the bases), do we really care about the day-to-day tribulations of the abandoned version of LP? Also, the link doesn't really show anything, just some users talking about "something". ħuman 15:45, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

I see what you added... the "move" link 1. doesn't work unless one is logged in and 2. tells people about the new site location. Anyway, I still don't see the point of having this trivia about an old site in our article. ħuman 18:20, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Old Liberapedia is now editable again. Proxima Centauri 03:00, 17 December 2008 (EST)

It's now gone, probably forever I guess the server contract ran out at the beginning of the year. Ajuk 06:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Tone

This article doesn't read like an RW article, it reads mostly like a report from LP about themselves. Can we rectify this, please? ħuman 15:56, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Revert it to the last non-Proxima Centauri version? Wisest word Hoover! 16:01, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Sounds like a good idea to me.. 侍  16:12, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I cleaned it up a bit, at least removing a bunch of meaningless commentary about their move to Wikia. Anyone feel like going there and hitting "random" ten times and reporting on their content? Last time I did that I didn't find much to be proud of, although there was one joke on one article... ħuman 17:27, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Title necessary for table of contents to work

Wow this is so cool. User:Mei 15:50, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

What is? Wisest word Hoover! 15:51, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

The running commentary. "Stop picking on liberapedia it's not their fault". User:Mei 15:55, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Deletion

Wha' happen? ħuman 02:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a restorin' so we can see what we are discussing. Apparentely Mei made a few "improovmintz" and then pulled the plug on it? Not saying I'll miss it, but still... ħuman 02:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I deleted this out of fun (see delete comment) but I also put up a delete nomination in all seriousness. Seriously, why do we have this? Mei (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. So it was a joke deletion, but a serious deletion discussion. Okay. I for one think, for some reason, that we should keep this. But I also won't cry if the mob thinks otherwise. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 02:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I also rewrote quite a lot of it before the deletion. Mei (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep - on-topic, historical, I see no reason to delete just because it's died of boredom - David Gerard (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But then could we, at least, make this article post-mortem, like our Christopedia article? Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 05:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a case for deletion at all. If the site has slowed to a crawl, what of it? ASoK has the same issue. Keep. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoof of RW logo?

How do you know it's not a spoof of the MediaWiki.org logo? Tisane (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it was on the RationalWiki article... - π 06:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead?

Didn't this site die or got attacked by spammers or something?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Naw, it's on Wikia, hanging to life by a thread. Blue (is useful) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Books

These are print-on-demand books that collate information from the internet. They operate on the "long tail" principle that states you can make more profit by selling a vast array of different but very specialist things, but only in small numbers. Cheap print-on-demand makes this more economically feasible than it used to be. To call them "published" and "available on Amazon" is a little misleading, since you can pipe your Lulu account into Amazon and anyone can sell what they like on there. ^gnostic 11:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What books?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

These guys suck so much.

To the point that they're more anti-religion than the ATHEISTWIKI: i.e. the point where it's not even scientific. They say that it is a mental illness and ingore the fact that it provides clear evolutionary benefits (group cohesion, increased happiness and lifespan, etc.). Still doesn't mean it's true, mind you, but you're clearly going wrong way when you're motivated by ideology rather than reason. 101.113.205.184 (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The primary writer of both Atheism wikia and Liberapedia is the same person. She also writes here. And it is awful. statement^word 12:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Revival?

From what I've seen, this article is a bit dated. I haven't done enough research myself, but it seems we've got a fair bit of activity over there at least for the past five days (for some reason, it stops counting after then on the "recent changes" log). They don't have very many people, and it appears the same small group of five-odd editors. They still have the strange "fun-house mirror Conservapedia" vibe (...Liberapedia is a website created as a liberal alternative to the ridiculous conservative bias of Wikipedia...). Combine that with the sheer informality and their explicitly stating the website's for a high-school reading level (...We also try to write in simple language so high school students...can follow our articles....) and they seem less a poe and more like that little kid that wants to become just like us when it grows up. Also, they like cryonics[2] and transhumanism [3] for some reason. I don't want to go through and stub while leaving nothing. I'm doing research on Liberapedia to see if I can get more info on it. That said, I am bringing this into our collective attention. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? Let it die. The primary editor there is an editor here. Humorless fascist^sociopath 03:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant that Liberapedia is, for the time being, not dead, and therefore this article is now outdated and should therefore be revised. Plus, it [Liberapedia] doesn't seem to be a poe, just a bunch of snickering angsty high-schoolers who thought a colour-inverse of Conservapedia plus a warped RationalWiki made for awesome sauce. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, feel free to update the article. I have no clue what the hell you said after that. Humorless fascist^sociopath 03:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A wiki with five-odd editors is barely short of dead, & I doubt it has many more readers beyond that. We have an article on it as a token gesture, but it's not really notable at all. By all means update it if you want to, but if you're putting time into research, there are much worthier subjects you could pick. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, fixed up the article. Didn't require much more than five minutes research time. Do what you will :-) Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete.

It's an irrelevance to the world and to us.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This article has, essentially, become Proxima's little self-promotional playground. I also vote delete. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Try as I might, I can't see any purpose in keeping this around. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been following it for ages - is the site still active / viable / what-not? If it really is just a one-person vanity project, then I'd agree and say it's no longer on mission. It doesn't seem to be notable in any way. Keeping this here would be like having an article on my blog... hey! There's an idea... --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 11:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Give us a link to your blog. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Liberapedia matters more than Iron Chariots, A Storehouse of Knowledge, see Recent Changes and many others with articles. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happens the article won't be lost. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The ASoK article is important for other, historical, reasons. Iron Chariots... meh; I wouldn't cry if it went too. Psy's blog is at http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Ty^JFBAA 13:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Google ranks this high. Having a high ranking article with a delete template looks bad. We need to decide fast and delete the article or remove the template. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's only relevant if people are searching for it. I humbly suggest that this is not the case. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the page, it can be restored if many people want that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)