Talk:RationalWiki/Archive6

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>, <7>

, (new)(back)

Our Alexa ranking

For 6 months RationalWiki's Alexa ranking steadily improved but now we're going down slowly. Is this a real change or is it Alexa Pseudostatistics? If we are less popular what can we do about it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If Proxima were to obsessively track the Catholic Church's Alexa rankings as she does RationalWiki's, the wiki would explode.  ^{ni eb}namuħ   10:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Proxima, only you and Ken care about Alexa. 86.152.140.186 (talk) (sophie at the radio station) 13:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article count

I think it should stay. Is there any other page on RW that has it?--Krej^talk 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Over six thousand, according to special:statistics. But i don't know if that's just mainspace or if it includes CP articles, essays etc. Sophie^Wilder 09:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Mainspace only - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way of filtering special pages by namespace? Sophie^Wilder 13:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Section Criticism

Quote: "This may be based on a slight confusion between rationality and rationalism"

This may be obvious to the experienced, but I don't see which is the one RW is based on, rationality and rationalism? Please make this explicit for the uninitiated. Thanks! --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that bit is probably bollocks. ^pathetic 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to rationalisation/rationalism. Reading the gist of the relevant articles should make it clear. ^postate 23:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

You should add 5. Being as arrogant and condescending as possible to give rational people inflated egos and turn away those who are confused and searching for answers.

"We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue."

How can anyone expect constructive dialogue when so many articles essentially say "If you believe X, you're an idiot"? This wiki deserves better professionalism. Parts look like they were written by snarky teenagers. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.161.110.239 / talk / contribs}

Parts of it were. Your best option is to start a constructive dialogue about any articles or comments you object to at the relevant talk page, rather than making sweeping generalisations about the site as a whole. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rationalism vs Empiricism

Another thought for the "why do you call it RATIONAl-wiki" section is that historical Rationalism was seen to oppose Empiricism. Rationalism in it purest form that all truths could be found through axiom and deductions from them. Where as Empiricism favoured sensory observation and induction from them. We actually lean towards Empiricism, although acknowledge Rationalism (ie, thought experiments etc.) - π 06:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit of a protean word, it's true. What you note is mentioned in Rationalism, and that the word's approximately inverted in meaning - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)