Talk:RationalWiki/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 September 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, (new)(back)

I sent an invite to the young whippersnapper who wandled himself here.--PalMD-yada yada 21:34, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Good for you. His IP block ought to over by now. humanbe in 21:35, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
I can't believe i said "young whippersnapper".--PalMD-yada yada 21:38, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
I can't believe I let you get away with it. Let's block each other! humanbe in 21:46, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
I, um, well, er, I'm not a, er, sysop. I can't block my own toilet.--PalMD-yada yada 21:47, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
  • I am now a vandal. Bohdan 21:48, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Baal, Vishnu and Jeezus! How could you???--PalMD-yada yada 21:50, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
  • The worst part is, he likes being blocked! humanbe in 21:56, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

history[edit]

I do think there should be a history section. All I know so far is what day it got started. YB indeed! 20:00, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

And then there was light ;) Thank you. humanbe in 23:27, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
WEIRD! I was reading up on CP on WP and read that a doctor named Peter Lipson started it. I can't find anything about it here, though! (Here as in the site, not this article.) So I thought I'd head over to the talk page, only to find that I had asked this question about 4 months earlier. Ha! Weird. YB indeed! 21:05, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Metapedia....[edit]

It has occurred to me, just now, that perhaps Rationalwiki should expand to cover, perhaps, this 'wiki' too?

Just a thought...--TheThinkingMan 21:43, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Touch dirt & ye shall be soiled! Susantalk to me 21:48, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Maybe an article, yes. As far a sickening-read hobby for people who can't get enough CP... Ugh. Anyway, we wouldn't have to "expand" to "cover" it. Just write an article. Ironically, they have no user named "Hitler was a sensitive man" yet... humanbe in 21:53, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
What I mean is, we already have watchdog pages for CP (more then one) perhaps it would be a good idea to include one for this site as well.--TheThinkingMan 22:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
We know where it is, idiot. Quit spamming the link to that racist trash around. humanbe in 22:28, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure, TTM, why not? Oh, perhaps because it would mean someone would actually have to go there over and over again. I don't have the stomach for it, do you? humanbe in 22:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps not. O_O Maybe we should send an email to one of the anti-racism sites around :/ I feel we need to do SOMETHING though. --TheThinkingMan 23:00, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Of course - write Metapedia.... humanbe in 23:26, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

New direction[edit]

What to do? I think we need a new raison d'etre, to reanimate the group. We've certainly got a great core of users, a slim & streamlined wiki (thanks to project whitewash and Susan's categorizing), and above all, time and brains on our hands (I really should wash those).

So what to do with them? I'd like to do something about the Creation Museum, or CreationWiki, or something like that. I still want to do the Visitor's Guide but I'm too damn busy lately. Other ideas?-αmεσ (pirate) 23:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

What happened to our old raisondetra? You know, the debunking irrationality thing? humanbe in 23:28, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I think we need a new target, or we'll be relatively aimless and just revert to targeting CP-αmεσ (pirate) 23:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps it's worth saying[edit]

That due to the inherently open nature RationalWiki (hell, even the Main Page is unprotected), and it's small size relative to sites like Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia, vandalism will be encountered more often than on those sites. All users should be encouraged to revert vandalism, on a bigger scale. --Ζωροάστρης 14:25, 11 November 2007 (EST)

nice screenname. Künstlerin (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This website is Propaganda[edit]

Theres no use denying it like some child. 98.17.12.20 13:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

It's not a "web sty", it's a "web shite". Git yer terminaulogy richt! humanUser talk:Human 15:22, 18 December 2007 (EST)
What exactly do we, um... propagandize? ...propagate? In any case, I can't imagine us doing a very good job of it... UchihaKATON! 15:25, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Liberal beliefs. 98.17.12.20 17:00, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I think we're "propaganda" in the sense that we have a viewpoint. But I don't think that's something to be ashamed of. We set out to have a viewpoint, didn't we?-αmεσ (pirate) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Rather feel that, apart from the odd right wing single issue wazzock, we're propagandising to the converted. (Is there any conection between a propaGANDER and a CANARD? Susanpurrrrr ... 15:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

It's no more "propoganda" than Conservapedia. So, what's a "Website", then? Somewhere for internet pigs to live? We only do and have goats here (with the occassional Hiver). Spica 15:47, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I think of it less as propaganda than as evangelism.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 16:10, 18 December 2007 (EST)

You don't know what a website is? LAMO! 98.17.12.20 16:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)


RW symbol[edit]

Suggest it be known as 'Bracket Brain' (unless octopedal representation).

Is it out of its skull? — Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs

The founder/organiser of the RW conspiracy (a combination of [[Mornington Crescent]] and [[Lord Voldemart]]). — Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs

This view on RW[edit]

[1] I like it. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Are we biased?[edit]

I understand that every author is biased in some regard but good authors try to suppress personal positions in favor of objective facts. Obviously Rationawiki has a strong position on the refutation of crankery and pseudo/anti-intellectualism which is part of the mission statement, but based on most of the articles here Rationalwiki seems to be rather left leaning. Whilst there is certainly nothing wrong with this doesn't this detract from our position as a site for those that rationally analyse issues and debunk idiocy? Existential Toad (talk)

The snarky response is that "reality has a well-known liberal bias". FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Also known as confirmation bias. 1)I am very rational. 2)This is what I believe. 3) If you believe also it, you can be considered rational too.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Since being right-wing generally consists of being nostalgic for the past and supporting economically dumb policies, not really. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I am based in favor of logic. Bias is not always a bad thing. Molesters could call things anti-molester bias and thieves pro-property ownership bias, etc. All perspective I guess. Clyde Winters The Black Celt (Caledonia) (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Rationalwiki self admits to being heavily biased, and as Fuzzy said, the snarky answer is that in general, reality is left-wing biased. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the common phrase is "reality has a Liberal bias," this was adopted much later by lonely left-wingers.シノラ (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I feel a lot of times Bias is used as a snarl world and part of a rant instead of actually pointing out perceived issues. Clyde Winters, Commanding Centurion of The Battle of Watling Street, Humbler of the Tribes of Britannia (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I see, so the general attitude is that if you can prove it works better, it isn't biased? Existential Toad (talk)
So if you kill everyone who disagrees with you, except the engineers of course, everything should work better. How is that unbiased?シノラ (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It can also depend on definitions of Bias. By the dictionary definition, virtually anybody with any perspective can call stuff that doesn't conform to their view bias. It's not a good way to explain your points or why the opposition is wrong. Clyde Winters The Tribal Chieftan Of the Black Celts from the Battle of Teutoburg Forest (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Very true. So Rationalwiki is not worried about bias as long as any points are backed up by logic and evidence? Existential Toad (talk)
I suppose you mean not worried? If so, generally yes. I mean it doesn't have anything close to Wikipedia's NPOV. Clyde Winters The Tribal Chieftan Of the Black Celts from the Battle of Teutoburg Forest (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Fixed, yes I meant not worried. Existential Toad (talk)
Rational Wiki is not an encyclopedia and is by no means neutral. It (at least tries to) takes a very rational position- it just happens as previously stated that left-leaning positions happen to make more sense/be more rational. Clyde Winters The Tribal Chieftan Of the Black Celts from the Battle of Teutoburg Forest (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Can confirm that RationalWiki has a liberal bias here, in particular there's a distinct lack of discussion surrounding leftist ideas and movements beyond "they killed lots of people". Withoutaname (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Guys, RTFM[edit]

You're welcome! :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There aren't any Checkusers here in RW?[edit]

Are there? Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Don't know what Techs can do though. Scream!! (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
RationalWiki:Techs gives a very brief, and in my view unsatisfactory, explanation. I am also aware that they are able to assign at least all the user rights groups we mortals deal with, which is why a not-too-ancient discussion of assigning tech rights to a person who resigned his mop amidst coop/controversy generated some blowback. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
For peace of mind: CheckUser is a MediaWiki extension. We do not have it installed. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
To remove just a slight tad of that peace of mind: technically, people with access to the server(s) (namely, Tmtoulouse and David Gerard) could root around and obtain the same information; however, such is standard for pretty much any website (since your IP address kinda comes on any packets you send/get sent), and they furthermore agree not to disclose users' IP addresses &c. except pursuant to appropriate legal process. So, is that way too much info to answer your question? WalkerWalkerWalker 20:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't installed here. There's considerable old-school objection to it because it was a favourite tool of Conservapedia. Theoretically Trent or I could grovel through the logs to work out what IP a given user was coming in from, but (a) that would be a wrong thing to do without something on the level of a legal necessity (b) too much like work. And if I wanted to work I'd get a job - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, makes sense considering some of the ugliness that happened both in RationalWiki and Conservapedia, only difference is that in Conservapedia insiders use it in bad-faith. It does relieve me, thank you. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, RationalWiki has never had a need for the checkuser extension anyways. Other than for formal votes on RationalWiki, I can't think of a possible application, other than to be a prick, for it to be used. RationalWiki, mind you, doesn't outright ban sockpuppets and duplicate accounts, so there's no utility for it. Gooniepunk (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, lots of people run multiple accounts and change names at whim, but there's the strong social expectation not to use it to fake consensus, so it works OK ... so far - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, doesn't it also complicate real harassment prevention here? Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
There have been rare occasions where it would have be handy to say definitively whether or not two accounts were coming from the same IP, but nowhere near frequently enough or serious enough for it to be worth the effort/break from tradition. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

How does one create a page?[edit]

Warning: Do not use createbox. It is outdated. Use inputbox instead. ClickerClock (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Seek & ye shall find. Scream!! (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
(EC) You can use search and click the red link that'll show up if there's no page yet, you can type a red link into a page you're editing and use preview and then click that red link, you can edit the url to go directly to the page you want to create and then start editing, or you can use this:
<createbox></createbox>
Glad to help. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Thank you both. Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Or you could have decent formatting and use this box instead:

<createbox />

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Pfft! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I already used the one above. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Interface[edit]

How does one update the RW interface like in Wikipedia for every visitor to experience a better RW? And if so, where can one propose this? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Special:Allmessages gives you every goddamn interface message. Not everyone has the power to edit this (I think it's crats or above) because you can fuck things right up. If you have improvement ideas and can't make the change, I'd suggest floating your proposals in the saloon bar. I'd expect anything obviously sensible would go over fine, the defaults are pretty generic and dull - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Essays[edit]

It's kind of a stupid question, but can user essays here get the same level of reputability as one written say in the New York Times? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki#So, do any "real" news outlets cite RationalWiki?[edit]

Feels like unnecessary self-aggrandizement. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 12:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Stay with me now... but I'd like to shorten that list to the major players, and/or sort it differently (per country of origin), and most importantly expand the text on how we're not a fringe page ourselves and that we welcome journalists, etc. Fuzzy, "self-aggrandizement"? We're actually making a difference, you mean! The "about RW" page is a landing page for everyone new at the site, plus journalists and others looking to see how citeable we are in the eyes of others. That whole page needs to be less shit than it's been for too long. We should be able to work out something great and balanced and less of an eye-sore. You know I just want the best for the site and our community. All the best, Skip Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and let me point out that the headline is far from set in stone. Had to type something. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
That's fair. It just feels long as if we're flaunting that "no srsly guys we're srs man". Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
But, dude, bro, we're so serious. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Totally, dudemeisters. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

Have any actual scientists bothered to write anything about Rationalwiki? 94.118.150.47 (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone references Rationalwiki.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rationalwiki&tbm=nws 94.118.150.47 (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I found this review

Should we add this to the article? 80.229.99.64 (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Why would scientists write about RationalWiki? What research could they possibly be doing that would require it?-- Forerunner (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's at least theoretically possible that this would be an accurate and useful source of information. There are scholarly reviews of WP, mostly dismissing it as garbage. Seems no actual academics even bother to mention this website. They should though, because unsuspecting memebers of the public may place some credibility on the laughable nonsense written here. 94.118.190.81 (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern for gullible web users like myself. I will make sure to visit the website you cited! 2.123.159.173 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your parade[edit]

Lamestream media likes us. And so does a number of stupid scholars. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what pet theory of this BoN we attacked. I bet it's something racist what with their citing ED. Hey, don't forget to look us up on their "how to troll" section next time. I'm sure we'll all fall for it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The BoN is Mikemikev, his first edit was on racialism (talk) spamming the same nonsense. I'm not sure why he's linking to ED as a source of information when he has his own ED article: https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Mikemikev Gorgonite (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you not have anything better to do? It seems like your life centers on this one tiny flake of internet drama, and I cannot begin to fathom why it's so important to you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:52, 6 October 2016 (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 [2]
  • 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)