Talk:RationalWiki

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wigorw.svg

This RationalWiki related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
Information icon.svg Do you have a general question about the site?
If it is technical, go to Technical support. If it is about the community or the content of the wiki, go to the Saloon bar.
This talk page is for discussing the contents of our article on RationalWiki only.
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

Can this site get rid of the pretense objectivity?[edit]

At least that way it would have some integrity, rather than parading left-wing ideology around as objective truth. — Unsigned, by: 104.238.169.90 / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?. Of course, if you think our "left-wing ideology" is bad, you're always free to challenge it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@104.238.169.90 Here's a comment with absolutely no pretense to objectivity whatsoever: you're not just a turkey, but an utter dingus as well, for missing this. Pip-pip cheerio! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Public stats[edit]

According to this (easycounter), rationalwiki.org has Google PR 5 and its top keyword is "korea wiki"; this website also offers a comparison with conservapedia. There are some reviews here (mywot) (currently 66, overall positive). --Cmonk (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Given various regular discussions by proponents of particular viewpoints, should there be 'What Rationalwiki is' and 'What Rationalwiki is not' articles? (Or one combined article if more appropriate)

What Rationalwiki is[edit]

  • The 'ideology' of RW is that 'arguments, discussions, and theses' should have a certain minimum level of correctness, understanding of the concepts, verifiableness and external support.

What Rationalwiki is not[edit]

  • It is not the other place.
  • Anything relevant from [1]
  • It accepts more robust behaviour and opinionated discussions than the other place (but contributors should still be courteous/not abusive).

Anyone care to develop (or at least have fun in the process)? Anna Livia (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think RationalWiki:Community Standards covers a lot of what you're talking about. Spud (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What happened?[edit]

I haven't been here in years. When did this place get infested with SJWs and faggots? — Unsigned, by: 68.35.67.233 / talk / contribs

I believe the SJW-faggot infestation started in 2008. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 16:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This Wiki is anything but "Rational!"[edit]

A wiki is supposed to be facts, not speculation or a place to launch personal attacks on someone you don't like or believe. Provide scientific proof against a claim, but 99% of this wiki feels like the anger of a 12 year old. — Unsigned, by: 68.112.27.252 / talk / contribs

But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki! Also, please sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. L̤̈ÿ̤n̤̈n̤̈R̤̈ (̈ẗ̤ä̤l̤̈k̤̈)̈ (̈c̤̈ö̤n̤̈ẗ̤r̤̈ï̤b̤̈s̤̈)̈ @ 17:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
1) A wiki is just a type of website, it's not "supposed to be" anything (although this particular wiki does aim to be factual). 2) If you were to point to a specific page or section that is a personal attack or feels like the anger of a 12 year old (and given how many pages we have there are bound to be some) I'm sure someone would remove it, but instead you choose to make a vague, general, unsubstantiated claim that serves no purpose. Christopher (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Gonna guess that BoN/Rationalpolice is referring to Ghost hunting TV shows, on which I rolled back his replacement of a 20kB article with "REMOVED OPINIONATED ATTACK. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not speculation." a few minutes before he started this thread/registered. Daev (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Should we break it to the BoN that this isn't Wikipedia? GrammarCommie (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL[edit]