From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Moved from article[edit]

I know we aren't a news oriented site but would anyone like a page where news can be noted & commented on - away from main page. E.g. : bbc - embryo hybridisation clear to go in UK I'm sure there's a lot of opinion on this & there will be @ cp, but we've nowhere really to discuss such things. apart from scattered talk pages. It might be a start page for more articles.

I heard yesterday that some Damned Liberal Activist Judge(tm) in Ohio ruled that gay marriage is legal. Expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth. -- 18:43, 4 September 2007 (CDT)(Gulik)

If there is demand for it perhaps, but maybe a different namespace? Like RationalWiki or something. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:24, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Well you da man - make it so! Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 18:27, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Eh, methinks "don't bother". News is easy to find on the web. Did you know that O.J. Simpson....? humanbe in 20:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

The mainstream media mentioned Illuminati by name![edit]

I have TWO videos, one 20 second, where CNBS mentions CNBC BY NAME, and ANOTHER 20 second one.

You call yourselves experts, PROVE IT! You can't weasel yourselves out of this one!-- (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Good source[edit]

Not taking their marketing quiz to read a damned Reason article. ugh. Ikanreed (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Objection to[edit]

I must object to the statement that is worth a look. As it currently stands Fark is much, much WORSE then Fox news.— Unsigned, by: Lots42 / talk / contribs 12:38, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)

I removed it. That bit was added in 2007, so...--ZooGuard (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a list of consistently good news sources?[edit]

Almost every news source listed on RationalWiki is one that is portrayed negatively. It's like saying you can't do something, but you aren't told what you're supposed to do instead. Granted, no news source is perfect, but can't you guys list news sources that are consistently excellent most of the time, as opposed to "good resource, but not the best for news" or "this isn't news at all"? (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I always thought RationalWiki should make positive articles on subjects that actually do their work and effort on promoting healthy skepticism and good reporting, and while they do, those articles often lack praise and often focus on the crazy things critics say about them. Even then, they're quite short. I guess it's much easier to point out and mock bullshit rather than praise and say good things about stuff like Skeptical Science, Respectful Insolence, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Quackwatch (we praised that), Southern Poverty Law Center, Science-Based Medicine, and so on; and why they make good arguments. Our own categories like Category:Skepticism and Category:Skeptical organizations are also pretty small and I do think we can benefit for positive coverage on things that promote healthy skepticism. I mean, we're already slanted anyway. On short, it would be a good idea to show which resources are reliable, and if we already do, we can work on it more. LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)