Talk:Main Page/Archive17

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, (new)(back)

Adsense[edit]

Google adsense has been added to the site, if google decides to display an add it will appear under the donation button on the left of the screen. I tried to arrange things so that it is relatively painless for all of us. This is a test run, provide me feedback on what you think, problems with it, etc. I will evaluate how feasible it is as a mechanism for being able to pay for the site and we will go from there. tmtoulouse irritate 14:20, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Uh, Trent, you do realize that a site needs actual traffic for ads to pan out? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Remember everyone - click away at those ads when you see them! We're getting some good ID hits - I just saw this one advertised. As I expected, this is going to be great - we get more material to defeat with our Mad Skillz, and the ID'ers have to pay us for our clicks! What could be better! DogP 15:12, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) And why did you link me to that orgasm of creationist propaganda? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:28, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm seeing them at the bottom left of the page.--Bayesyikes 15:26, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Yep, scroll all the way to the bottom, and ads relevant to the page you're on appear. So dig into our pages, find some nutty vendors, and make them pay us! What fun! DogP 15:33, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
It's perfect for you RA - since you can't keep yourself away from RW, just click the Random Page button, and since we have so much anti-wackjob pages, you'll end up at some page with a few ads by wackjobs. Click on that, get some money off them, then return to another Random Page! Repeat until bored, you've just helped RW's pocketbook! DogP 15:37, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Advertising for evil[edit]

Gaaah!

Great. We're advertising for the wrong side. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely - who's money would you prefer we take? It's great research for us too. DogP 15:52, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

What I really need is the color code for the background over there where the add is appearing. Its not pure white and the grey I have now is not it either, anyone have any clue? tmtoulouse irritate 16:43, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Digital Color Meter on my mac says its grey 249. #F9F9F9 Apparently, today there is no black or white. Only shades of grey. At least here it is easy to tell the truth from the lies and the foolish from the wise. Well, most cases. Bonus points if you can sing the song. --Shagie 16:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
We fade to grey....DogP 17:11, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Human, can you change your user name? When you sign on a talk page I keep seeing ads for "Human resourcing". Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 06:49, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Hehe, that's hilarious! Your sig brings up ads for "Jolly World Domination Through Fishing"... humanUser talk:Human 13:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
I have now started getting Human Resource type magazines in the mail. Boy, those people work fast! humanUser talk:Human 21:38, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Adsense placement[edit]

Some of the AdSense ads are now appearing at the top of the articles, which I definitely don't like - can that be controlled? I don't mind them in the sidebar. DogP 17:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hold tight I am working on some things. tmtoulouse irritate 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
So here is what I am playing with, that banner add will not appear for anyone thats logged into the wiki, but anonymous users have roughly a 20 percent chance of having one pop up on an article. It will never appear on the main page or any of the wiki special pages. I am experimenting at the moment and seeing what works/doesn't work. I will also be implementing and "ad free" version that registered users can opt into if they really don't want to see the ads. tmtoulouse irritate 18:17, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, that seems clever, and gives encouragement to create an account. DogP 18:21, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Good work Trent. Personally, I didn't mind the ads down the bottom left, the top is definitely intrusive. I keep clicking them as I know they help the site - or should I keep quiet about that? Myabe only pi-pledgers get the ad-free version? Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I really dislike the banner ads. The ads at the sides are fine but a block full of ads screaming creationism at the head of all our articles is very destructive to our credibility.
P.S. Genghis, saying stuff like that could get Trent's adsense revoked. - Icewedge 18:35, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I know, I am sympathetic about the banner ads, but I want to run some tests, there are several reasons that make those banners worth a LOT more than the side ads. I just want to see what it is like. 24.141.66.208 19:46, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Do we really need all that many adds to pay for our hosting costs? We get along the lines of 12K hits/day(RationalWiki:Statistics/Mar2008) which, assuming a CTR of 0.5%, is 60 clicks/day and with a ppc program giving out $0.05 - $0.40 on each click we will have more than enough to cover our costs (which I believe you said was around 50$/month) and have a surplus. - Icewedge 20:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
That strikes me as a rather pessimistic view of humanity—surely the number of fools who actually click on such ads is much lower?  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Some sites have reported CTR of greater than 50%; these had banner ads though so I think 1 out of 200 is a reasonable assumption for RW. - Icewedge 21:13, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Costs are greater than $50, and while I am not allowed to quote statistics per TOC we are not quiet where we need to be but it seems promising. It is way to soon to analyze it, but thats why I am experimenting with different things just to see what works/dosen't work, etc. Tell me what you don't like, offer up suggestions and at the end of a couple weeks I will look at the data and make a decision. I will be experimenting with different types of ads and ad placement and we will just see. 24.141.66.208 22:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ad Free RationalWiki[edit]

For those that hate the ads and want nothing to do with them you can now change your skin preferences to an ad free version of monobook. I am not here to force the ads on anyone that doesn't want them. Its up to everyone to decide what they want to do. tmtoulouse irritate 17:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Thomas, please end your narrowminded fascist crusade. Get rid of the ads. SHahB 17:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Bodhan, please end your narrow minded fascist efforts to undermine RW. Go bother somebody over at CP. Rational Edperception 17:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Whew, that's a relief, thanks. I suppose I have to send you more money now? humanUser talk:Human 18:14, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Dude--will B leave if we keep the ads? Keep the ads! (Sorry, B...) Sterilexx 18:53, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why ...[edit]

... when free hosting has been offered is this necessary? Shakinghead.gifSusanTalk(if you must) 17:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

First comment, nice page space whore of a sig you have there, Susan!!! humanUser talk:Human 01:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
The person who offered free hosting has since left the site, which highlights one of several reasons I didn't want to make such a move. It puts the existence of this site out of my control. I have pledged to keep this site up and running for as long as possible and have bent over backwards and made many sacrifices to ensure there is little to no interruption.....turning the site over to someone else like that endangers things too much, and as is evidenced by the case in point no matter how "in our camp" someone might be you never know how the fates will turn. tmtoulouse irritate 17:24, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Yep, I support that TMT. And I'm really enjoying taking money off them and doing some batshit research while I'm at it. DogP 17:29, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
I must admit that when I saw the first creationist/ID ads I was taken aback. But now I realise that clicking on on of their adds costs them money and raises funds for RW then I'm quite satisfied. How much do we get for each click-through? However, as a pi-pledger I would like to know just what is the state of our finances (although maybe somwehere a bit more private). Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:53, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
That's a fair point - me too. Trent would answer but he's driving his Ferrari down to the country house for a yacht trip. DogP 18:05, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Basically the site currently costs (with some plus or minus depending on various factors) $80 a month, as things stand I get about $20 a month average from donations, and have received several larger one time donations on the order of magnitude of $10-$40. So if RationalWiki is an entity outside of me (which it isn't as of this time) it would owe me several hundred dollars. I swear I am not making a dime of this endeavor :). If something were to happen such that the site were to earn more income then it costs to run in a month I would just move the money into savings for leaner months. If we were to consistently make more money per month then it costs to run we could consider scaling back or investing in advertising the site or whatever. But as it stands it is not paying for itself yet which is what I am trying to do. If that doesn't answer questions or anyone wants more info go ahead and post or I can always be contacted in private over any matter at all. I may not be as active on the site during the semester but I am always checking mail. tmtoulouse irritate 18:07, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
If it hasn't already been said Trent, thanks for starting this, keeping it going out of your own pocket, providing us with such an entertaining forum and putting up with all the shit. Now, how do you intend to recompense me for the number of hours I have lost to this damn project? Eh?! DogP 18:15, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Saaaaaay, Trent... how much do we get per click? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:38, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks Dogged, recompense comes from that warm and fuzzy feeling you get knowing that schlafly curses us every night. RA, I am not allowed to say actually, turns out google is very particular about this point and made me "sign" and express agreement not to reveal that information. It is way early yet to tell but I am going to try this out for a little while and get an assesment of it and give some general feedback in a few weeks. tmtoulouse irritate 18:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Trent, I never meant to imply that you were benefiting financially from RW. I just wanted to know what sort of sums we need cough up to keep the site afloat. From your $20 a month quote I guess that makes six of us actively contributing. Come on you guys, thats less than a Starbucks coffee a month and is non-fattening. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I didn't even notice the ads, until I came to the mainpage edits and read this. Personally, I think that the crazier the ads, the better! I'll add more later... humanUser talk:Human 01:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Ads give a good set of targets to debunk. Which in turn adds more content for us, which in turn adds more for the people looking for it finds us. --Shagie 01:59, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
I must say that I don't like these advertisements. How are they selected? Or is this covered by the confidentiality agreement?--Bobbing up 16:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
No, one doesn't have control over placement - AdSense ads are placed by the GoogleBorg on pages that the GoogleBorg deems relevant. Basically, it treats the entire contents of whatever page you're on as input to the Google search engine, than puts ads there that it thinks are relevant. In our case, since we have so much talk about conservatives, evangelicals, and nutjob YEC beliefs, it puts those kind of ads here. There's a positive side to it Bob, and in fairness to Trent, I think if one is not already a Pi Pledger, there's no entitlement to have an opinion. Someone has to pay for it, after all. DogP 16:46, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, I am a Pi Pledger and I don't like them. :-) --Bobbing up 04:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough, and me neither, but there's only four others and that's not enough. DogP 17:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Good-looking turds are still turds[edit]

(Found thanks to Adsense!) I somehow doubt the U.S. navy advocated chelation therapy for its sailors. Also, the picture of that "doctor", Mr. Cutler—my, what perfect teeth you have. And how tall you are. And white... --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:24, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Hehe[edit]

"But who cares when Republicans say offensive things? It's expected of them. " Thanks (ames? gulik?) I LOLed. SHahB 22:12, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Not me, Bohdan. Sadly, it _is_ true. Look at all the crapola Conservatives get away with because all the True Believers discard it as Liberal Slander, and everyone else just has Nixon flashbacks. --Gulik 15:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Constitution:Immigration[edit]

Quote: "No more anchor babies. Thanks to extra-constitutional court decisions, babies born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents immediately become U.S. citizens. This was never the intent of the authors of the Constitution." (http://www.conservativeusa.org/immigration.htm) What is the constitutional position on immigration, if any? I'd have thought that it (the constitution) predated any concerns. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:12, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...
—Amendment XIV, Constitution of the United States[1] [italics mine—Ed.]
Oh, dear. Unfortunately for the members of the only church acceptable among conservatives, Church of the Holy and Divinely Infallible Founding Fathers, what the Constitution actually says trumps what its writer's "intended". --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:13, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Hah, Conservapedia doesn't need "facts" or "history." Schlafly simply knows these things with 95% certainty. ThunderkatzHo! 15:16, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
So: in addition to "Cafeteria Christians" we've got "Cafeteria Constitutionalists"! SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:19, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
You couldn't tell that already from their support of torture, warrantless wiretapping, and state-endorsed religion? ThunderkatzHo! 15:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
"Original intent" is a creepy methodology used mostly by archconservatives when it's convenient for them. They never raise a fuss over what the 2nd amendment must have meant by "arms"... humanUser talk:Human 15:26, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Yup! that's what I thought. SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:29, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
The founders "originally intended" for slavery to be legal... Sterilexx 18:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, yeah, but that original intention was amended eventually. In theory, at least. humanUser talk:Human 18:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Help![edit]

My browser doesn't appear to be loading pages here correctly anymore. Is anyone else having trouble? --Horace 20:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... Seems Ok now. False alarm. --Horace 20:38, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I had a problem too just a while ago, I think it may be Trent editing the adsense. - Icewedge 21:19, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) Think I'm getting this problem too, or something similar. The navigation bar either disappears or appears where the page itself should be.58.120.227.83 21:21, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, the "top banners" have yielded some weird stuff. Although none trashed the page loading for me, who knows what that crazy grad student is up to? humanUser talk:Human 21:32, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
All right screw it I will nix the banners...........but it was really fun coming up with all the crazy php code for it. 24.141.66.208 22:30, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Jesus Made Me Puke[edit]

This retreat reminds me of some place on the web...--TimS 12:29, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Ham[edit]

I like ham, especially honey ham, Virginia ham, and chipped ham. i like ham sandwiches, ham salad, ham and eggs, and deviled ham. I sometimes like to ham it up, but I am ham handed. I know some ham radio buffs. Wasn't there some guy in the bible named ham too? Even jeebus must like ham. There is that dish at IHOP I believe called moons over my ham me. They know. They know. Ham rules. Does anyone else have any ham memories or a special fondness for ham that they might like to share?

On another topic I think banner ads about how to do banner ads are pretty funny. But not as good as ham! Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 17:56, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Ham smells like pig shit. Fox 18:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Ham does have a distinct smokey-savory aroma but . . . it does originate from the nether regions of the swine. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 18:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
I second Fox on the nasty smell bit. I'd also like to say that this is a very unhealthy obsession you have. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:59, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Fox, have you ever really smelled the south end of a north-facing pig? And then compared it to some well-smoked bacon, or some lovely Black Forestish ham? I think not. Your religious prejudices against tasty pork "products" are showing! You know, it is the "other white meat" - no alternativeffirmative action required! humanUser talk:Human 21:45, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Nay, nay and thrice nay! Pig meat really does have a tang of pig pooh about it. As for knowing the smell - yes, I know it alright: that's a question only a townie would ask :D I once lived in an extremely rural area (by English standards, ie in a farmhouse at the bottom of a dirt track accessible by a narrow lane running through the marshes, an hour's drive from Tesco) and trust me, there were plenty of pigs on the surrounding farms. Mind you, a far worse smell was when the local baron decided to try out "nitrogen cakes" for fertilizer... Which is a posh way of saying dried, compressed human sewage sludge. That was one helluva summer, believe me. Fox 03:25, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Interesting how one's Bible-based prejudices can color one's experience of reality. Rational Edperception 08:13, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Not the case at all - I don't particularly like the taste or smell of beef, either, and last time I checked I was not a Hindu. Fox 08:17, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
So just all-around olfactorily challenged. My condolences. Rational Edperception 08:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps the opposite - with such a highly developed olfactory sense I am able to detect the pungent odour of dead things and their previous dietary habits a little more clearly than most others :P Fox 08:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Fox, that's an unhealthy obsession, and you should seek professional help. Gives the phrase "Sixth Sense" a new and rather disgusting meaning ("I smell dead pigs"). Rational Edperception 08:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I like having a Krusty the Clown sandwich. That's ham, pork, and bacon on rye. --Edgerunner76, B.A.H. 14:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

How about some pork rinds on the side! Rational Edperception 15:30, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

GMT[edit]

Informative article on GMT at Conservapedia: "Greenwich Mean Time, or GMT is the mean time that the earth takes to rotate from noon-to-noon." — Unsigned, by: 67.168.25.232 / talk / contribs

Idea for the future of RationalWiki[edit]

I don't believe that the future of RationalWiki is According to. I believe it's future is WIGO. Not WIGO as we know it today, but a WIGO that moves beyond Conservapedia.

"According to" has limited appeal to the community here because the items it discusses are not "Web 2.0". That is, they are not interactive. The appeal of the CP-specific WIGO lies in that the experience is (a) interactive and (b) it involves clashes of personality. "According to" passively reports on news concerning nutjobs. Furthermore, the sites they link to are static, and lack the joy of watching nutjobs interact with each other, as on WIGO.

Now, the loony sort of conservatives we find on CP aren't exactly common on the 'net—liberals are far more dominant. New Age communities, as well with crackpot-heavy communities in general, however, are plentiful. We would ideally comment on whatever New-Agey/crackpot wikis, forums, and blogs we can find, as well as whatever ultra-right-wing communities blogs, wikis, and forums we can hunt down, and establish a WIGO for them. We would get all the trappings of the CP-specific WIGO we have now—we would get to watch the internal workings of such communities (in particular, enjoying the clashes of personality), get to jump in and participate in the other communities if we lose patience with being a mere bystander, and, ideally, we would get to watch their reactions to us and our WIGO. And don't forget, we get to be snarky in our entries.

Granted, there would be some caveats. We wouldn't be able to attain the same level of familiarity with many disparate sites that we would with just one (Conservapedia), so to avoid confusion, we would have to state the site we are commenting on, as well as link to relevant profiles of the personalities involved. This would make entries longer (though hopefully no less witty). If the we choose to cover forums and blogs as well, it would be more difficult to track changes in the text; one would need to take a lot of screenshots to do so. Also, other communities may not be as tolerant of us as Conservapedia is.

There is a second goal within this plan. A number of people here have expressed that they dream of RationalWiki becoming a dependable resource for debunking the anti-science movements, crackpots, and various other movements and personalities. Realistically, it is highly unlikely that will ever come to pass. We're just too small, and there are already many other, more-established sites that do this. This also overlooks our greatest strength: our community.

In the process of commenting on so the internet communities described above, we will inevitably come across people who have waded into the alien morass on their own, and are attempting to inject some sense into them. We should do exactly what we do with such people on Conservapedia, and set ourselves up as a "recovery station" for these adventurers (with the goal of retaining them for the long term). We should quietly invite them to our site, via email if possible, or via a post on the wiki/forum/blog if necessary. Most may not accept, but if even a handful did accept it would greatly expand our membership. Even invitations that are turned down would serve to build "brand awareness", by getting our name out there and increasing the likelihood of new people finding us. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Section break 1[edit]

So, what do you think? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

An interesting proposal worthy of consideration. But do you imagine one big WIGO; various WIGO's; subdivisions of one big one or what? To be honest each possibility is less than perfect - but I like the idea of going somewhere else. --Bobbing up 12:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Good proposal, but as you say - at present we don't have the familiarity with other sites. Maybe we should target them one at a time and create a new WIGO for each as we go on? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Although one user wanted to do that for Metapedia but that was stepped on. though perhaps metapedia is a special case.--Bobbing up 12:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I didn't think it through that far, whether we would build one mega-WIGO or several WIGOs. My initial thought was that maintaining several WIGOs would be too much effort to maintain. But I see your point. It may be best to do a test run, and let the community pick a single nutjob online community (hopefully trying not to be too ambitious when making our choice), and build a new WIGO specifically for that. I never envisioned my post as a road plan, and I imagined people would hammer would things out as it went along, just like we've always done. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Just be careful of the increasing our membership thing. If that's your goal, then fine. But remember what the most common corollaries are, namely increased admin, increased costs (bandwidth, etc.), loss of "tight-knittedness", and, maybe most importantly, the potential breeding of your own nutjobs. The latter is the scourge of any large internet community.
I'm not saying what you propose above is a good idea in general but specifically any drive to increase one's membership should be considered carefully. Sometimes small really is beautiful. Ajkgordon 12:49, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
If we don't want to attract more people why do we write articles?--Bobbing up 12:53, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Ajkgordon— Well, my notion was that so much of our membership is Conservapedia-centric, and if we don't boost our post-CP membership, then this site will die (or at least be severely crippled) when Conservapedia dies (as it inevitably will). --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Does that mean you think I'm beautiful, Ajk (5ft 1½ins? Seriously though, you're right Ajk You don't need a hierarchy when you're as small as we are. Bob - to disseminate our views? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
If we wish to disseminate our views we must hope people come to read them. If people come to read them they may well stay and edit. Creating any type of content is an implicit invitation to join us.--Bobbing up 13:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Yup! SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:05, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, I wasn't arguing against it. Just highlighting the possible effects. S'all. Ajkgordon 13:09, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Well, as my grandpa expressed it, "We'll get there when we get there." We'll deal with that issue when it comes up. No use worrying about it when, if go about things right, it may not even happen. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
The identity crisis RW suffers seems to be due to the dificulty of deciding if we do this for our own amusement and the random edification of those who might come across the site, or whether we are a serious attempt to wage a battle to the death against irrationality on the internets. Rational Edperception 13:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Quality not quality. If quantity is one way to increase quality, then fine. If it just creates more admin and crap (i.e. spending more time bickering amongst the membership rather than doing the job,) then it's a waste of time. Dunno which one, just that it should be considered. Perhaps a set of WIGOs for an agreed set of sites rather than a free-for-all. Or pick a couple to find out if it works as you intend. Ajkgordon 13:14, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
There's also the fact that it's FUN taking the piss out of those fascist godbotherers on CP because we know them so well! SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, don't want to be playing the DA too much but.... this is similar to a conversation we were having yesterday about the BNP (far-right British party). Too little coverage and they can ferment in their cess pool. Too much and they are engaged in dialogue with all that can bring. Has RW got the balance about right now? Just a thought. Ajkgordon 13:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Alright, hold on just one moment. I can already see were this is going. We're starting to descend into "what ifs". We'll start nitpicking and debating hypotheticals, and at the end of the day, what could have been a good idea has been derailed. Just once, can we FUCKING TRY IT before shoving our head up our asses with our hypotheticals, our nitpicking—our "what if"s!?

Give the idea a test run, and we can work problems out as they come along. Which, in case you haven't noticed, is how we've always accomplished things here in the first place. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

What's the first step in your scheme then, Radman? A satellite of WIGO dedicated to New World Encyclopedia?85.25.151.22 13:43, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Bollocks. It's not nitpicking. It's just thinking things through. There's nothing wrong with considering possible effects - at least you understand the potential pit-falls. If you don't want to spend five minutes doing that then fine. But there's little worse than thinking "Shit, I should have thought of that".
And, "in case you hadn't noticed", we already suggested a test run. Perhaps you should locate your head first, hmmmmm? Ajkgordon 13:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Ooooh, aren't we testy today? Interesting how hard it is for some to stay in discussion mode. Rational Edperception 14:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
He started it! Ajkgordon 14:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Some thoughts: It sounds like an uber-blog, which is not necessarily a bad thing... I'm not sure that becoming the annoying gnats of the internet, an entirely reactive entitity, is the best model. (I'm not sure that we enamor a lot of new readers by the obsessive our anti-CP-ing, either. People then have to care then about ConPedia and us...) And as TMT says below, some of us do like the anti-pseudoscience stuff...) Pardon the rambling. Sterilexx 14:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Rather than annoying gnats we could be the Justice League of Teh Internets, shining the awesome light of reality into every dark corner of irrationality. Rational Edperception 14:27, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Fuck yeah! Team RW! Ajkgordon 14:43, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Community aspects vs resource[edit]

As a site we of course have many "personalities" two of the broader categories are those aspects of the site that focus on community, and those aspects of the site that are based around creating some kind of resource. I think they are both very important I like the idea of expanding our "community" based interactions. However, do not underestimate the power of some of the resources we have built up. While the majority of our articles designed to debunk, or serve as some sort of resource don't achieve great heights we have had some significant success.

Some examples includes:

These articles have at various times received significant traffic (on the order of 10,000s of users) and sparked off site discussion and interactions about their content. Various forums link to the pages and have debates about the content that never reaches here. Basically I just wanted to state that we should never underestimate the potential for the impact of publishing real articles on here can have. We have sparked debate in a few corners of the web, introduced some content, and come to be the "goto" site for certain kinds of articles (something like the poe's law is now linked across the blogosphere to our article), not to mention more than a few of our articles are pissing off the right people. tmtoulouse irritate 13:30, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. I hadn't considered that. I suppose I did underestimate their value/potential. I do think my idea is perfectly compatible with your vision. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I hate to be picky, but the wager is merely a quote from someplace else. Interesting, but hardly a demonstration of the value of RW's own articles. Rational Edperception 13:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I agree it compatible, not saying otherwise. I would agree PoorEd to an extent, but would say that our production of it (as with poe's law) served as a flash point for discussion. The links/readers were to us, and our existence and publishing of it served to produce discussion/debate. So while its not original content choosing to publish it on our site did do something atleast. tmtoulouse irritate 13:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Good point. Rational Edperception 14:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

A response to RA's idea[edit]

RA, the first step to making what you propose a reality is to do something (note that you are also engaging in "what ifs"). Create a "WIGO"-type article about some other nutter place that is active enough to support it and also has a vacuum in terms of clear criticism (IE, not AIG...), and see what happens. "If you build it, they will come" - and if they do, it will increase in value. If it hits the level of interest that WIGO CP has, IE, virtually daily updates, it would be worth begging Trent to implement the backend for a voting system to add to interactivity.

One reason WIGO CP is so strong is that CP is the perfect storm - plenty of nutwhackery on a daily basis, very active in general, enough notability to be a magnet for "new" people both there and eventually here (even non-joining lurkers), and some "wonderful" personalities to dissect and report on.

If a new WIGO/somewhere takes off, then it would be deserving of its own namespace for related articles. humanUser talk:Human 14:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded. Ajkgordon 14:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, before RA blows a gasket over "what ifs" - I hereby suggest that he finds an appropriate website to WIGO.--Bobbing up 14:21, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, go fer it, dude. Rational Edperception 14:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Agree with above Fox 14:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Also agree. Seeing as I am the one proposing a new WIGO, it falls to me to suggest specific sites.
By the way, any pointers would be appreciated. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
1. Find site
2. Create article
3. Add lulz and mockery with diff links
...
5. Profit! humanUser talk:Human 15:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
To Radman: have you considered that Intellectual Conservative site that Crock-o-spite is always spamming links to? They're pretty irrational most of the time, from what I can see.85.25.151.22 15:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I realize that pretty much everyone here is too scared of Metapedia, but StormFront have a wiki too... Fox 15:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I might be wrong, but I don't think there's much WIGO mileage in really insular, stagnated communities like that one. Every entry would be "15 April: Stormfront is still run by nazis.". — Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs 16:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I still think that's a coded way of saying that an offshoot of a homeschool project with a handful of regular users and sysops is a much easier target than a full-blown irrational site. You guys really aren't much in the cojones department, are you? :D Is the aim just to produce humour? Or to prick self-inflated egos and draw attention to sites which are a danger to the joe at large..? Fox 16:06, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
(Massive edit conflict) Well, yeah, I think humour is a vital part of our functioning here, especially when it comes to WIGO and talkWIGO. Don't you think? Stormfront and Metapedia are basically unopposed in their actual wikis because no one else really cares what they think. There just wouldn't be much happening to report on. Lastly, Conservapedia is a little bit more robust than you're implying there, Foxy(!) — Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs 16:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
The main thing is the activity level and visibility of CP that works. MP is too slow moving to be fun to patrol and mock. Is there a refutation site for creationwiki? humanUser talk:Human 16:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, RW claims that CP is effectively invisible, and 50% of the non-administrative edits are made by RW sox... Fox 16:14, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Actually I've always thought that we strengthened CP by giving them an enemy. An entity against which they could unite.--Bobbing up 16:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Hey, how about a little cross-fertilization? I found this at Metapedia: "A Choice, Not an Echo by Phyllis Schlafly, which suggested that the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger banking conference, and whose policies were designed to usher in global Communist conquest. "A Choice, Not an Echo" became one of Goldwater's campaign slogans." Rational Edperception 16:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Damn, I was completely oblivious to this conversation.
You might also consider Creationwiki as a more... hmmm... sane candidate, or rapture ready for the sheer hilariousness (the fact its not a wiki might be a problem though). NightFlareSpeak, mortal 16:41, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Also, isn't Stormfront the home of the REAL neo-nazis, i.e., the dangerous ones? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 16:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Damn. I so wanted to start one for the Eagle Forum (graduating up from Conservapedia : ) ), but they have no, well, forum. Oh, poo! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:43, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Fox - CP has much greater ambitions than MP. CP wants to grow and requires a supply of willing zombies to do the donkey work. That opens the door to parodists, vandals & trolls the lifeblood of the lulz. It only needs the bite of a small horsefly to set Andy running around bucking all over the place like a creature possessed. Although by internet standards CP is small, it is big enough for our membership to have enough fun with. It's rather like a cult soap opera (Acorn Antiques?) with weird characters and wobbly sets. Metapedia has limited goals, it doesn't set out to be white-supremacist Wikipedia, it has limited traffic and has probably covered most of its bases already. There is no opportunity to go under cover, do a lot of inconsequential editing and slip in some rogue facts or prod the sysops into ridiculous postures, you would be sussed immediately. As RobSmith would probably tell you it's always easier to hide in a crowd. People have tried to do stuff at MP but basically got nowhere so it's not a question of cojones. And as you're propably more concerned about anti-semitism or racism than I am (sure I'm against them but I'm not Jewish or ethnically different from them so I don't feel the oppression in quite the same way) then why don't you tackle them? I don't fear them; I have no fixed abode, use different ISPs, have dozens of aliases and email addresses and am fully trained in marital arts. There's just no mileage to be had from trying to rile them. You may call them irrational but the issues are more of a political thing and while most editors here are on the left of the political spectrum I think we've largely kept away from being overtly party political, our political targets tend to be the more loony types rather than sociopaths. However, it could come under the aegis of us being anti-authoritarian but as a group they lack any sort of authority anyway.Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:13, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Nicely, put, Philosopher of the Mongol Hordes. Rational Edperception 17:21, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Bwark...buk...buk...buk...bwark! Whatever. Fox 17:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
A fox immitating a chicken? How did I end up in Fable Land?— Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs 17:25, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
hehe. that is funny. SHahB 17:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
OK this maybe a bit Dawkins-like (so apologies to our moderate liberal Christians) but nazis sit at the top of the pyramid of intolerance, supported by a wide base of nationalism, covert racism and homophobia. Reduce these factors throughout the general population and there will be very little support for the far-right. From my point of view Conservapedia sits somewhere near the upper middle of that pyramid. Now, I see you got back your blocking and upload rights at CP and have been pretty busy there lately, are you there to constructively help them or are you working to actively reduce the layer of support for your nazi enemies? Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
PS. The ad homs don't help your cause. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 07:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Meh, I was just being lulzy :P And even if you didn't laugh a little, I was a shit-comedian and did a little :D Fox 15:18, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Grand Theft Auto IV[edit]

Has anyone else played it? As with all of the prior GTA games since III, IV has a very anti-conservative/right-wing tone. The in-game conservative radio talk station, WKTT, has the Richard Bastion show. It is really well done. It's hard not to accidentally think your listening to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Obviously, the Bastion character says thing that would never be said in real life, but it's hard to tell. It feels like Hannity or Rush being cursed to only say things as they really mean without euphemisms.

The Bastion character also touches on anti-science. One of his comments is how he doesn't trust any science except for the science that "let's us turn a million ungrateful foreigners into glass."

The radio and TV news service in GTA4 is called WEASEL NEWS (a play on Fox News). One of Weasel's central themes is to connect everything to potential terrorism. --Edgerunner76, B.A.H. 14:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

It's them eevul ghey atheists in Scotland wot dunnit. Ajkgordon 14:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
In IV, you can now be a passenger in a taxi. Just like when your driving you can change the radio station. When you pick the station you want your character asks the taxi driver to change the station. When changing to WKTT, your character will always ask in a derogatory manner ("Can you put on that crazy right-wing station?").
Liberty City's deputy mayor is a hard-right, family values, closeted-gay conservative (this is a part of the story). This is supposed to represent Larry Craig. There is even mentioning of wide-stances. --Edgerunner76, B.A.H. 15:17, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

An evangelical manifesto[edit]

An evangelical manifesto was brought up on CP's main page (no comments on that yet). There is some interesting reading in it - the group that published it is looking for a seperateion between politics and religion.

Some intresting points in there - "The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice." Note the 'faith and practice' not 'law and science.' There appears to be a call for the end of the culture war as a compromise or truce and chastises the extremists on both sides for making this difficult.

One of the gems in there is:

First, we repudiate two equal and opposite errors into which many Christians have fallen. One error is to privatize faith, applying it to the personal and spiritual realm only. Such dualism falsely divorces the spiritual from the secular and causes faith to lose its integrity. The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions.

Just something to read. It is likely a refreshing to read something about religion that is seeking a middle ground rather than Andy's tirades and the mixing of faith and politics.

--Shagie 17:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In a similar vein, following a train of links from the blog about the Expelled box-office takings I found this site. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:01, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Interesting Conservapedia News Item[edit]

I actually thought one of their latest items would be surprisingly appropriate for RationalWiki news - considering such discoveries that "...inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light." Yet somehow being less bothered by injustice and unfairness is a good conservative value... Original article here. UchihaKATON! 18:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

New York[edit]

I don't usually care for Al Sharpton, but I really love this story SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 03:18, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Spam influx[edit]

Due to the increase in spam the last couple days I have added "<a href" to a spam filter. There should be no reason why we would need to use it so yea, but let me know if it causes problems. 24.141.66.208 11:24, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

What does that do anyway? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 11:30, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
The spam filter? just refuses to let the edit change post. 24.141.66.208 11:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
No, I meant the href thing. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 11:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
It's what you use to put in a non-wiki external link. (short for "html reference" ?) SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:49, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
p.s.(It's what spammsters use to link to their pr0n sites etc.) SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:54, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Ahh, I see. Thank you. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 11:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
it is actually a bit of HTML, part of the anchor tag with its most common attribute href tacked on to it. It is what basically any link you see on a web page is made out of (excluding javascript trickery). It is used by wikipedia as a conveneience along with a bunch of other HTML stuff. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 17:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Some fresh loopiness[edit]

http://questforright.com/

I found posted on someone's (one of us?) blog by a smug troll. humanUser talk:Human 19:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

My impression of them: "Watch me throw around scientific-y terms without knowing what they mean!" --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:57, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Looks like some IDiot just trying to cash in on the need for pretend science textbooks in the Goddidit community, to me. Cross pollinated with a dash of crank ala Gene Ray... humanUser talk:Human 12:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
Sample quote (mined) from actual supposed text of one of the books: "To forward this goal, the innocents in their formidable years are instilled with the idealism that they should put their undying trust in any formulae derived from the studies of chemistry, physicists, mathematics, astronomy, etc.". Yah, it's that bad. humanUser talk:Human 20:44, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Mission Statement[edit]

Could we add "4)And have a lot of fun doing it", or similar, to this? That's one thing we've got over CP; they're so serious. We don't want to be like them, do we?

This was prompted by someone flagging the article on Heidrun as being against our mission statement, which is possible.

Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence 04:04, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I think fun is mentioned in a few places. The key is to have fun while sticking, to an extent, to the mission, so "fun" isn't #4, it's a stylistic issue. Also, things which really are off-mission but we want to keep we often move to... the "fun" namespace. I usually don't bother with the templates and just leave a note on a talk page saying "Move to fun: or delete?" but that's just me. humanUser talk:Human 12:29, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Just some Wisconsin wackos...[edit]

Note that these are certainly not indications of what religion does, but rather just intended to be a 'WTF' reading. The second story likely troubling to those with a medical background and interesting to those with a legal one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050902304.html
"Lewis told the deputy Middlesworth died about two months earlier, but God told her Middlesworth would come to life if she prayed hard enough."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744614
"Parents charged in diabetes death - Even as her 11-year-old daughter lay dying on a mattress on the floor of the family dining room on Easter Sunday, Leilani Neumann never wavered in her belief in the power of prayer. "We just thought it was a spiritual attack and we prayed for her," Neumann said, according to a police report. "My husband, Dale, was crying and mentioned taking Kara to the doctor, and I said the Lord's going to heal her and we continued to pray.""

Broken Links[edit]

The link to the fun space here is broken, the others might need checking too... Don't blame me, I'm new here. Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence 09:44, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it just me...[edit]

Or was the site down for a while, there? PFoster 14:56, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Aye, something went wrong, I just got home and had e-mails from people saying it wasn't available. I restarted the apache server and that seems to have fixed it for now. All signs point to me needing to get off my ass and do all the proactive maintenance I have been avoiding for 2 months. tmtoulouse irritate 15:00, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, TMT - part of me was worried that the recent Headless Chicken Mode episode had had some nasty, nasty consequences...PFoster 15:02, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Any assistance/cheering on that I can render? --Linus(plot evil tech) 15:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Can you optimize the mysql database? tmtoulouse irritate 15:25, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
I'll see if I can. --Linus(plot evil tech) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
Then can you synergize the stuqj module? SHahB 15:29, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
And while you're at it, the flux capacitor has been acting funny lately. PFoster 15:31, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Captain, captain, there seems to be some trouble with the tribbles! humanUser talk:Human 15:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm serious. Lay off the drinks :) SHahB 15:39, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
I couldn't get the site either. Proxima Centauri 15:28, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Apologies, guys. It was something we were trying out. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:59, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
I thought we agreed to NOT test that thing on us. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 19:02, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
So that's why I've got a nasty rash. Ajkgordon 17:26, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Expelled: Leaders Guide not displaying properly[edit]

Expelled:Leader's Guide does not display on the main page correctly: below is the text that I get when it outputs the article as the randomly featured article.

Expelled:Leader's Guide

The producers of the "documentary" feature film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[1] (featuring Ben Stein), have    
created a "Leader's Guide", intended to structure debate on the topics raised by the movie - you can read the  
document here. The following is a point-by-point discussion of the arguments presented in the document.

</noinclude><noinclude>

Table of Contents

Introduction: 	&nbs ..→ read the entire article

You see the problem right? Someone with dpl skills should rectify this. - Icewedge 01:55, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Think I've sorted it: it was a mismatching of <noinclude></noinclude> pairs. Check it, but I think it's OK now. --Albert 10:10, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
No: Something seems to be stopping the second noinclude working -I've removed t after trying all sorts - is it because you're copying only so many characters & the split comes between a noinclude - /noinclude pair? I've tried removing comments & moving NOTOC but it doesn't affect it. Albert 10:53, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I've looked at the page that creates this (dpl?) and dont understand it (sorry) but I suspect that it is the cut-off coming between a noinclude pair as I note above. The author could experiment with increasing the selected number of chars - I dont feel that I should interfere with it as I dont understand it at all! Albert 11:15, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Interesting point that the closing tag might be getting chopped off that way. It's a pain because testing takes 5-50 reloads of the main page (or the dpl template). I have to run out for a bit shortly, but when I get back, I'll set up a dummy page somehow (i'll probably add a red cat to ELG) to test on every reload and see if I can't beat it into shape one way or another. If it's not fixed by then ;) humanUser talk:Human 13:29, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I've exhausted my suggestion box - tried moving everything around & nothing worked so I think I'm right above. The only way would be to do a character count & put the /noinclude right on the choice point! Albert 13:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for trying. I have a few ideas, but I'll need to concentrate for an hour or so to try them, and I don't want to make a mess. As I said, I'll be back to try them out in a few hours. humanUser talk:Human 13:35, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
What is the problem, anyway? Right now, the thing ends with "Introduction: ..→ read the entire article", but I gather that this isn't the desired effect? (I've made a Coverstory-emulation sandbox here, by the way. It only shows that one article.) --Sid 18:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Hm, looking at the posting times, it's possible that this is the desired result and that this has been silently fixed... --Sid 18:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
If you look @ Icewede's quote, you'll see that it had a spare noinclude etc . these were intended to remove the contents table from being transcluded but asthey were split by the character count in the (dpl?) it didn't work - we've just taken all but the first pair out (hiding the Coverstory template) --Albert 19:03, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Hm, I see. Well, between my post and your reply, I've thought of a few potential ways out of such problems. See the sub-section below. Maybe it's of some use... --Sid 19:12, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Some thoughts[edit]

Here are some thoughts how potential problems like this can be solved. They all have advantages and disadvantages, but they allow some more control over how the coverstories are presented, I guess.

Labeled Section Inclusion

As described here you can simply designate a certain section in each Coverstory article like this:

<section begin=coverstory /> Part of article you want to appear on front page <section end=coverstory />

Of course, you would have to mark such a section in each current and future cover story for this to work. Off the top of my head, I would guess that this DPL would do the trick: Replace the "|includepage=*|includemaxlength=750" part with "|include=coverstory" in the coverstory template (You would have to take care that the section doesn't get too long, or you could leave the maxlength in there, but then you may run into issues again, maybe).

Expand intro section

Since the DPL will grab the first 750 characters of wikicode (plus maybe more to close some brackets and stuff), expanding the part before the intro with more summary will take care of this issue. I guess. Not sure since I dunno exactly what the issue is in the first place. Of course, this might result in empty talk or bloat.

Transclusion of doom

Move everything after the intro section into an extra sub-page and then simply transclude it with noinclude: <noinclude>{{/article}}</noinclude> (might have to choose a shorter name if you're desperate). This makes editing the article a bit more inconvenient, of course, since practically all of it is located elsewhere.

Padding

Simply add an includeonly'd padding section consisting of spaces (not "nbsp"s, I think, since those may be cut in mid-word as can be seen above) in the intro section. Of course, this section has to be reasonably large, but potentially not too large (since it may leave the "includeonly" tag stranded without its closing counterpart). This is a cheap way, of course, and makes editing the intro section potentially tricky (since you may have to adjust the padding section, too).

My opinion

Personally, I'd go with the labeled sections. It's by far the most flexible and professional approach that lets you include exactly what you want. Of course, it also means the most work since you'd have to edit all coverstories to have such sections...

I hope this helps. If not for this case, then maybe in general. I mostly posted this here because I like to hear myself talking ;) --Sid 19:12, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I think you're right. It allows for "including" exactly what we want. There aren't a lot of them to change. I was thinking of an "includeonly" section, but that would be messy, what you suggest does exactly what I would have tried to do. Have you tested the code you're suggesting to make sure it works? Will "noinclude" tags work inside the "section" tags if necessary? Thanks! humanUser talk:Human 20:23, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I've sandboxed things for a test. Results:
  • Labeled sections work like a charm. See User:Sid/Leader and User:Sid/Cover.
  • The change to the template would really just be what I suggested above: Replace the "|includepage=*|includemaxlength=750" part with "|include=coverstory".
  • Noinclude tags work inside labeled sections. For example, I noinclude'd the reference in that intro section (since clicking it on the front page wouldn't do anything).
I'll leave it to you guys to implement those changes since it's 3am here (which has become my average bedtime these days - help!), so I won't be around much longer. The histories of my sandboxes should provide details if needed (I just needed a few extra edits in the Leader sandbox to avoid accidental inclusion of that page on the front page). --Sid 21:07, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I used my last brain cell tonight to do some "work" (yeah, yeah, but it pays...). I'll get on this soon. We also need to edit the coverstory "articles" so people know how the hell to do this. After we're all gone and other people run this wiki, and all that. humanUser talk:Human 02:00, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I'd leave it - complicating things for one article, which looks OK anyhow, is not neccessary --Albert 08:44, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, others sometimes have issues, too - sometimes I see raw table tags, etc. Doing what Sid suggests will let us precisely define what part of an article is used as the "teaser" on the main page, which would be nice. As it is, we still have to know to "noinclude" templates and images that are near the top of articles, so the actual effort is the same as before. humanUser talk:Human 13:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Sorted the easy way! I've put an excerpt at the head of the document using <includeonly ... </includeonly> so that it doesn't show in the actual doc, but is used to fill the dpl extraction. Should be pretty easy to replicate for other similar pages without excessive trouble. SusanG  ContribsTalk 10:12, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Maintenance day[edit]

So I have run a crap ton of scripts/bots/optimization routines and purged a lot of unneeded data and programs from the site and the web server. Hopefully that will make things run nice and smoothly for a while, but keep an eye out for anything strange and let me know. tmtoulouse irritate 17:41, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

The only strange thing I have seen was a crap ton of scripts/bots/optimization routines running roughshod over all my carefully crafted unneeded data and programs on the site and server. So they must have worked ;) humanUser talk:Human 20:25, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Performance still slow...CP is faassterrr than us oh NOES! DogP 20:28, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
That comes and goes I think, if we are having consistent performance problems let me know and I will see what I can do. tmtoulouse irritate 20:29, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Wp namespace masking potentially good articles[edit]

Could there be a special page for 'articles linked into wp: namespace that we should consider writing ourselves'? In particular, I had a link to scopes on wp, and then someone created a page here and there was no way programatically to know that this was linking off site while there was a page here. --Shagie

Can you ask that again in a way that I know what you mean? (Personally, I run a general jihad against "in line" Wikipedia links - is that what you are talking about?) humanUser talk:Human 02:06, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Assuming that you simply mean "List all pages that contain [[wp:xyz]] links", then yeah, shouldn't be too hard to do with some DPL. I'll try to whip something up once I made some dinner. --Sid 13:52, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
My jihad consists of removing any "in line" links to wp: that "look" like intra-wiki links. I change them to "ref"s. That, however, does not solve your problem. humanUser talk:Human 13:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm... ran into some trouble in my sandbox. Somehow, a parameter doesn't quite do what I want (in fact it doesn't do anything). I'll look into it further later, though. --Sid 15:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I am not sure that DPL can do this so I have gone ahead and programmed a bot to search through pages and report a list to User:wpbot/wplist seems the quickest/easiest way to go. tmtoulouse irritate 16:41, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Pi Pledge?[edit]

My ship has come in. Where is teh Pi Pledge linky? PFoster 11:03, 14 May 2008 (EDT) Oh. you mean the one that says "site support?!?!?" Christ, Foster, you're a bigger moron than I ever thought possible. PFoster 11:04, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

No fair. You're not allowed to answer yourself before I can. Demarcation, I say.— Unsigned, by: 246.246.246.246 / talk / contribs 11:08, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, it's confusing as there used to be a nice big pledge button. I think it got removed when Trent was playing around with the Google ads. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:10, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Personally, for the first little while, I assumed "Site support" meant tech help, not "support the site". So yeah, it's a bit unclear. --Kels 19:06, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Yup, agreed. You're never gonna pull in cold hard cash with that wording. Change it to something more obvious, like "Donate Cash Here' or 'Give us Your Money To Us'. No point beating around the Bush. DogP 19:09, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

"Donations" would be succinct, I think? I also meant to ask a buddy of mine who could sell snow to a hyopthermic Eskimo for some advice on wording for the support page itself. If we do it well, people will throw $5 or so at us here and there. humanUser talk:Human 19:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

And? No progress on the rewording yet? Come on, just change it to "Donate here!" for now or something. DogP 16:34, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I tried to find where to edit it and couldn't. We need to page Trent, or perhaps Linus can do it. humanUser talk:Human 16:38, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit]

Given the recent appearance of Google Ads here, this story might be of interest. Alt 15:28, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that is indeed interesting. Thanks! humanUser talk:Human 15:48, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm... Duly noted - we need to take care on that front. DogP 20:21, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Hey, it's part of being able to do business. One solution is to write about it. Over at my new place, we have a ton of ads, and some are not great---but they make blog fodder...-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Unhand me, scoundrel! 20:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I wasn't complaining about the presence of adverts; did you read the story? It was about Google not allowing an anti-Scientology site to have adverts paid for by the scientologists. In a similar vein they might decide there's a problem with this site hosting adverts paid for by creationists etc etc. (aside: who's crazier? Scientologists or Conservapedians?) Alt 16:38, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Scientologists win. Both are equally loony, but Scientologists are even less tolerant and more aggressive than Conservapedians. Also, Conservapedians never broke into federal buildings. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:28, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Also, and rather disappointingly, CP isn't running an Adwords campaign, which might then show up here. Which would be FANTASTIC! DogP 19:56, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't call Scientologists crazy as much as I would call them a group of gullible ones (those believing the evil ones) and evil ones (those who take advantage of the gullible ones, plus the other things like the one linked above). Either way if you define Conservapedians as the active sysops, they win in terms of craziness. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 20:03, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Ides of May?[edit]

Tumbleweed.gif

--PFoster 11:00, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Shifty.gif --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 12:02, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I motion that we permaban Foster, as a warning to other unauthorized users who continue bringing up Ides. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
First rule of Ides: We do not discuss Ides. Unless it falls on a Thursday. Unless it is during a leap year. Unless that leap year is evenly divisible by 27. "Why 27," you ask? We don't discuss that, either. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 14:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Second rule of Ides: We do NOT discuss Ides. UchihaKATON! 20:05, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
I just wanted to add some green to the screen. humanUser talk:Human 20:46, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Quit hanging around, you guys. :) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Sock of BluesPotion, et al 19:08, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Those tumbleweeds make me want to sing: #Do not forsake me, oh my darling.... Spica the Hiver If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 17:19, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Hey, that's an episode of The Prisoner! humanUser talk:Human 17:28, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Well you can try and un-win me, but I've figured the way around your silly game. So there :P <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>Sock of BluesPotion, et al 17:31, 17 May 2008 (EDT)


Think Before You Sock...[edit]

See you in jail.PFoster 20:45, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

While I appreciate the concern, the details of this case are egregious. While I do think the judge did the right thing, I also hope that the "law" was not perverted too much in this pursuit of justice. I also don't think it's going to be transmuted into some "always use your real name on teh innertubes" types of rulings. (The big ISPs have already pretty much insulated themselves from user activity responsibility, so that frees the users, in a sense) So the big concern is, if we manage to drive teh assfly insane, Big Phyl will sue us for vegetable support? PS, IANAL, and IANANAL, and IANAS! humanUser talk:Human 21:12, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

local blogging bigots[edit]

So, the online version of my local paper hosts blogs, a few dozen of them. One of these bloggers is the type of specimen we generally study here: hate-filled racist, sexist, classists pigs trying to hide behind the cross and whatever printing run of the bible they think is absolutely correct. I bet some of you have a local paper with the same type of bloggers. Any interest in starting a WIGO for them?

A taste of my pet bloggin bigot:

there's more, there's more. She posts a couple of times a week. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 10:28, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

My personal favourite blog, Canadian Cynic, generally has a similar focus on the idiots and liars up here in Northern Canuckistan. Only rather more casual, heh. --Kels 10:34, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
From the strawman link above "But in actuality are we all really tobacco chewing, hay seeds with dirt floors?" Well, if you punctuate like that, perhaps... humanUser talk:Human 15:06, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
"I guess I am NOT included in this myth!" -- If you say so, lady. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Sock of BluesPotion, et al 15:14, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Of course she's not included in the stereotype of the uneducated evangelical. After all she's got a high school diploma! That's a hillbilly PhD. DickTurpis 17:44, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
She must be pretty gosh-darn smart to know all that stuff about demons! That must have taken years of careful research! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>Sock of BluesPotion, et al 17:48, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Why not set up an "inverse" to our blogroll of some sort, where we can list the main "door" to them and any particularly egregious posts? Would that make sense? I suppose it could be called "What is going on in nutjobland?" or some such (needs a better title though). humanUser talk:Human 15:30, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
What about a WIGO page for for blogs? Not quite the same as the news roundup in "According to some people", more like an ongoing analogue to WIGO but with a wider range. Each entry would have a link to the entry, maybe another link to the blog itself. It would be pretty easy to set up, and with this crowd I think it could be entertaining too. --Kels 16:14, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Like variations on: according to blog linky/blog name god is post linky/caption
More or less, but I didn't see it as quite so formal in structure. More like WIGO than ATSP. --Kels 17:11, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
So kind of a list, new ones at the top, of exact posts with WTF? commentary, and perhaps a section where we put the "main" links to the blogs being mocked? humanUser talk:Human 17:30, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I've coined RationalWiki:What is going on in the clogosphere?‎, because I like the name. All rights reserved. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>Sock of BluesPotion, et al 18:06, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

American Complicity in Korean Massacres[edit]

Not sure where - if anywhere - this story goes on the blog, but here's an eye-opening bit of history about South Korean crimes against humanity - and American complicity in them - during the West's long and heroic struggle against the evils of Communism. Yay, the West. Go us.PFoster 15:53, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Whoo. --Linus(plot evil tech) 17:57, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
For those who don't follow the link:
...South Korea is unearthing the skeletons and buried truths of a cold-blooded slaughter from early in the Korean War, when this nation's U.S.-backed regime killed untold thousands of leftists and hapless peasants in a summer of terror in 1950.'
On a related note, I visited the UN cemetry in Busan a couple of years ago, a very moving exerience. The US tend to repatriate their dead but the soldiers of dozens of other countries are buried there. Beforehand I didn't realise so many other countries were involved. Although a pacifist, I often visit the cemeteries of British soldiers around the world (Alamein, Ypres etc.). Not because I always support what they did but to pay my respects to those who died in the service of our country and generally didn't get the thanks that they deserved. Of course, in some cases their deaths paid for our current freedoms and we shouldn't forget that. Military cemeteries often reduce me to tears just because of the scale of them. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
You raise some interesting points, Gengis, but I often about the whole wonder about the whole "service of our country" idea, as well as the question that "their deaths paid for our current freedoms." In terms of the first part, well, one could argue that in many cases, the service of the country was actually the service of a particular segment of the country - i.e. the monied elites who tend to benefit from the maintenance of the status quo. As for the second part, I'm not sure to what extant the Korean War or the Gulf War or the Falklands War or the Vietnam War or really any war since 1945 has helped to guarantee my or my country's freedoms. And while liberating Europe and half of Asia from fascism and Japanese imperialism was no doubt a good thing, the extent to which the allies got involved for questions of self-interest (while giving the whole thing a liberating sheen) is often drowned out by all the patriotic hullaballoo that follows such an enterprise.PFoster 19:01, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
You will find that a similar "purge" of suspected communists, or "night of the long knives", was carried out in many counties in the 50's and 60's. Indonesia's is perhaps the most infamous ("the year of living dangerously"). As for the number of nationalities invoved, it was actually a true U.N. action. Rational Edthink! 09:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
1. Similar purges? I thought we were supposed to be the good guys. 2. UN action - the war was a UN action, but read the article: the massacres were carried out under the watchful eye of American military officers.PFoster 09:52, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I was not defending or rationalizing the events. I was stating a fact. As for us being the good guys, there are no good guys. Glad to see you're catching on. Read up on our assistance in the overthrow of legitimate governments from Iran to Chile to further our own interests and "fight against communism". Rational Edthink! 10:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Ah, sorry - it sounded like you were (I haven't had coffee and misread your edit as saying the commies did it too... as your namesake would have) and the "there are no good guys" thing is hardly something you need to tell me to realise, I've been on that bandwagon for years - including the Indondesian case....though I haven't seen the movie as I live in a Mel Gibson-free zone...PFoster 10:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm the Bizarro World Ed Poor. Too much red kryptonite, yuoiu know. :-) Rational Edthink! 13:28, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Database[edit]

Some how we lost all data from around 20 minutes ago to 5 minutes ago. Not sure if that's a problem but I've never encountered it before. Lyra (Tell me, have you seen the motherless breadfish?) 18:09, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

At a guess, I would say that your browser may have failed to empty the cache, although a database failure is possible. --Linus(plot evil tech) 18:25, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Christian gene isolated[edit]

Maybe the fundies were right about the "gay agenda" all along. LOL. [2] Rational Edthink! 08:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Nice work. Maybe it should be an EL at Christianity? humanUser talk:Human 12:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

1 in 8 High School Science Teachers don't always teach science![edit]

12 percent of all teachers . . . called creationism a "valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species," and the same number said that "many reputable scientists view these as valid alternatives to Darwinian theory." So much for standards of education. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 09:19, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

*squints*
If you're TK, you've gotten very good... UchihaKATON! 11:17, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

While surfing around a few of the Schlafly-related posts, I found this little Ann Coulter-bashing gem. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:15, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Great blog. Thanks, RA. Rational Edthink! 14:04, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

British fundies[edit]

For UK readers - there was a documentary on Channel 4 last Monday called In God's Name. It features Andrea Williams of the Lawyers Christianity Fellowship who seems to suscribe to all of CP's nutjobbery, (what is it about lawyers - is it because they can often win adverse legal cases through oratorial tricks rather than just the scientific evidene?). As The Independent said about her: She believes that abortion should be illegal, homosexuality is sinful, and the world is just 4000 years old. Her views on other religions, particularly Islam are so offensive they're barely printable. If any UK viewers want to watch it then it can be seen again at Channel 4 on demand, either view direct or save for later viewing). Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:35, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

The world is only 4000 years old? This woman is in complete denial of scientific facts which show that the world is much older than that - 2000 years older, to be specific. Heretic. PFoster 13:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
I know, I think it was a journalist's mistake, translating 4000 BC to being 4000 yrs ago. But I left it as that was the printed quote. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:27, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Fundamentalists are absurd wherever they are found. Rational Edthink! 14:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)