RationalWiki talk:RationalWikiWiki

Um, the production values are a bit low because it was just founded TODAY!

At least it seems to be growing rapidly! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 07:00, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Shouldn't the logo be [[[[brain]]]] instead of the normal [[brain]]? Or maybe [[brain]]²? ;) --Sid 08:22, 27 December 2007 (EST)

I suggest a picture of wp:Harvey Cushing. :nods: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:17, 27 December 2007 (EST)

That's a really obscurantist gag AKjeldsen.--Bob^{bing up} 05:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Thank you. :-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 08:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Title. Wouldn't it have been funnier (and actually more appropriate) to call this article "RationalWiki:RationalWikiWiki"? human 17:48, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks, whoever did it! human 15:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Infinite regression

I propose the creation of RationalWikiWikiWiki to report on the activities at RationalWikiWiki as it reports on RationalWiki which in turn is reporting on the goings on at CP while it tries to counter the "left wing bias" at WP.--Bob^{bing up} 05:32, 28 December 2007 (EST)

WAAA

Have you lost interest in RationalWikiWki? There have been no edits in weeks :( --72.232.23.238 14:01, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Yup! Susan^Purrrrrrr 14:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Interesting - I note that bunchanumbers used the same mispelig that is in RWW's url... Someone put out their eye! human 17:31, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Its not a mispelling, that's the maximum. TmtamesP 01:23, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

"Phail Two, RIP"

Someone needs to start up another wiki so we can have detailed analysis of this scandal. TmtamesP 00:59, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely. RationalWikiWikiWiki @ editthisinfo, anyone? All the good usernames are still available! human 01:12, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

"RationalWikiWikiWiki" has too many letters. TmtamesP 01:18, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

So misspell it, like they did. human 01:35, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Give me a good 15 letter title and I will do it. TmtamesP 01:42, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

RatWikiWikiWiki human 01:49, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

[1] TmtamesP 01:52, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

RationalWikiWiki

RWW is too snarky. It says too much about what’s bad about us as individuals. It says too much about what’s bad about us as a group. We’re not as bad as RWW makes out. We’re a rapidly growing Wiki with good articles. We need less destructive criticism and more constructive encouragement. There is always a risk here and at RWW that Christian Agent provocateurs are playing on the weaknesses of those here who are tempted to be snarky and putting us against each other. Barbara Shack 04:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

We have no reason to believe the are Christian provocateurs among us. And I think we could pick up any; the last person whose edits were interpreted as even vaguely creationist felt the wrath of RationalWiki crash down upon him and he was banned. And I think we do a fine job of pitting each other against ourselves—we don't need anyone's help. : ) By the way, are you sure this was the most appropriate place to bring up RationalWikiWiki? It felt sort of... out of the blue. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:58, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

But that's the whole point of an agent provocateur, isn't it? You don't realize they're agents until its... too late! _{Oh noes!} --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Where should I discuss RWW?Barbara Shack 06:25, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

RationalWiki_talk:RationalWikiWiki is probably best. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I've copied this from RationalWiki talk:Cat fight.Barbara Shack 07:06, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Whoops! Ah, sorry, I forgot what page this was on. My browser was here, my mind... somewhere else. -_- -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:41, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems I didn't realize the page had been moved from the earlier page I made my first comment on. Which is just as bad a mistake as the post I just struck out above. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

And I would just like to mention RW doesn't have good articles. Articles here are written from a NPOV. If I wanted to learn about something, I'd read Wikipedia or even God forbid read a book. This place is a pisstake. 134.226.1.234 12:02, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Missed the point you have. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 12:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Eh, what? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 08:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Barbara, RWW is just another website. The fact that we know about them (and even participate) might make it seem weird. Imagine how CP feels about RW... every spelling error ends up on WIGO CP, every personal foible there is magnified on this site. And, just as CP has no control over RW, but the two sites share some editors, RW has no control over RWW, even though the two sites share some editors. If you don't like what RWW says, don't go there. Keep in mind, RWW could just as easily be some blog that we don't know exists, saying the same things (or worse). Having said that... what is your point or goal? What change do you seek to effect? human 11:58, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I want less snarkiness here and, to the extent that we have influence I want less snarkiness in RWW.Barbara Shack 13:16, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

First, have you read RationalWiki:SPOV? Second, I must note that you seemed happy to write the first, very snarky, version of gay sex. As far as RWW... well, I edit there, but play "follow the leader" on editorial content. You also edit there, so have the freedom to do whatever you can get away with to improve or alter their tone and content. Thanks for answering my question, I appreciate it. human 13:33, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I don’t mind being snarky about Andrew Schlafly, Phyllis Schlafly and that lot. I just don’t like us being snarky against fellow freethinkers.Barbara Shack 07:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree that we should not unnecessarily persecute our fellows, Barbara, but I also think we should be able to laugh at ourselves. It keeps us from getting arrogant, I think. We just have to learn where to draw the line between the two. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:06, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Just as we have Really Embarrassing Liberals, if a "freethinker" says or does something foolish, we can mock them just as readily as anyone else - and should do so. It adds to our credibility. Note that at least a few RationalWikians find Dawkins latest book to be less than "top shelf". And I am somteimes just as embarrassed by militant atheists as by bible thumpers. human 13:29, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Down?

ScribbleWiki appears to be Down. (Easter Holiday?)Marghanita Laski 20:44, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Might be temporary, but, yeah, the last time I tried to reload recent changes the little red light just kept flashing. human 20:49, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Since Midnight! (Good Friday Holiday) & it's not just RWW - Scribble itself & My wiki also. Marghanita Laski 20:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Someone left a link at wikiCP talk, something like "isitjustmeorisitdownforeveryone" or some such silliness. Might check that. Could be a revolution or nuclear war, too, of course. No need to blame Jesus and the moon. Shouldn't be an equinoctal sun blockage of a communications satellite, thought, since the equinox was really yesterday anyway. human 21:12, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ appears to be down for at least me. human 21:16, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

"It's just you. scribblewiki.com is up." human 21:18, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Its up now, for me at least, which reminds me I was in the process of begging for SDG files. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 21:24, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Yup! - it's back, thanx Marghanita Laski 21:25, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

They stole my logo

That was my design, to they credit it to me? There is also a liberapediapedia now, I don't know who made it, I don't the point myself. Ajuk 09:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

If you go there and bring it up at, say, talk:main, I am sure due credit will be given. Although it is known that it came from LP, the "author" may not have been noted. I'm not sure, though. By the way, it wasn't "stolen" - you gave the brainz legs, and they walked into the office on their own, sat down, smoked all our cigarettes, drank most of our booze, and refused to leave. human 12:53, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Damn those brainz! Who need 'em, anyway? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:41, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

THE IDENTITY OF HANS JOHNSON

HANS HAS MADE A MISTAKE. This and this. THE IDENTITY OF HANS JOHNSON IS KNOWN! -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Get to the bunker} 03:31, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I have previously connected them to the same IP a couple of months ago, on an admittedly shaky grounds; RA said the IP was his and then the IP a couple of months later made an edit to HJ talk page that it would seem only like the user would make. I have posted such speculation in a place he would have seen so perhaps this is just a deceitful attempt to confirm incorrect theories of his identity. - Icewedge (*bleet*) 04:07, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I just always assumed he was our pet juvenile delinquent, radioactive cracker person. ħuman 04:30, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

_{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} ?esaelp ,won no evom ew naC .toob ot ,ereh ti ta ylivaeh detnih dna ,egap resu aidepolcycnU sih no semit lareves oge retla sih saw snaH taht ylnepo dettimda AR .semit eht dniheb yllacigart lla er'uoY

True, but not everyone is as stalkerish well-informed as you, Cha. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:17, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

_{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} .liaf fo edam era yeht ,si ecnereffid ehT .ti ta bats gnicnivnoc ylriaf a gnivah era relletyrotS dna egdewecI

Epic called. He'd like to have his win back. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:30, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

User lists

Aww, I don't appear in any of the lists of users with a stupid caption next to my name. (sniff) Crundy 10:07, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Redirect

I'm being redirected here whenever I try to open RWW. Is anyone else having this problem? Phantom Hoover 08:47, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yes. It's redirecting to the RW mainpage for some reason. ArmondikoV^gnostic 08:55, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Fakes

Anyone who's bothered (although I can't see why anyone should be) might like to nip over there & claim their username - there's three claimnants to SusanG @ the moment and one to me! _and marmite 04:36, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Interesting. I shall be having words with them about this. Time evil Phantom! 04:50, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I think they're all the same person, now with at least 6 accounts over there. But if this does happen, anyone can ask us to rename the fakes on our talk pages here. --  Nx/talk  04:53, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I have not got six accounts "over there", (I've got 12 & none of them a Susan or a Toast) Haversack Williamsburg 05:04, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Err

RationalWikiWiki has a problem

Fatal error: Call to a member function selectRow() on a non-object in /home/rwwiki/public_html/wiki/includes/User.php on line 777

_and marmite 17:56, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Trent might be sorting something out... Time evil Phantom! 17:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Supposedly it was me who broke it (the new password didn't match what LocalSettings said it should be). I fixed it now, and I just double- and triple-checked it, but for some reason it still says it's broken. Maybe the server needs to "reload" or something? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I refuse to comment; I'm still bitter that you didn't let me into the root password gang. Time evil Phantom! 13:28, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Why? What would you want with root access? (and I don't have the password either, and am not bitter about it) --  Nx/talk  15:15, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

What a shame

They haven't discovered me yet. I was looking forward to some humor.The Goonie 1 08:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

They are really slow on the uptake. Surely by now our epic battles would deserve comment? And your epic struggle to fame with your band? RWW are such losers... ħuman 08:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The chance of a person or event here making it onto RWW is proportional to it being relevant to CUR in some way. Totnesmartin 08:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Local wikigod(dess) - Peanut on Legs (earmuffed).

Borken (again!)

Attempting to create an account fails right now, because the reCAPTCHA says "Input error: Invalid referer". --Maratrean (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Worked for me, try it again. Тy^Talk. 12:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is working for me now too. Must be a gremlin infestation. --Maratrean (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

500 error

Aww, I liked that...

Anyway, it still does come up with the error from time to time, though not as much as it was in the runup to the botserver crashing last year. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

GODDAMNMOTHERFUCKINGPIECEOFSHITINFERNALHELLBLASTEDLAMEASS500INTERNALSERVERERRORSAREBACKGODDAMN Тy^Ahoy! 19:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ROFLYSST.^moral 11:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So what the hell happened?

Huh? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd been there, right? 14:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

who the fuck shut down my wiki

i want answers and i want them now Harmonic bastard Hoover!

No-one "shut it down". No-one was willing to keep paying the money to keep it open, and hence it died of natural causes. VOX^HUMANA 00:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's rather wishful analysis when the main page banner states "RationalWikiWiki's owner, Punky McPunkerson, has decided to shut this site down'." He discussed the decision in the same terms in various places (main page talk, treehouse) without taking on board others' opinions about the shut-down or discussing alternative funding. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an even more wishful analysis of what happened. Bottom line: RationalWikians are both drama whores and toxic to each other. When I took over RWW, it was during an era of relative calm on RationalWiki, and I thought it would be a fun project to take over and give relief to the limited resources of RWF. And not long after, RationalWiki became a toxic atmosphere of factionalism in which every alliance I had made decided that I had to choose between "us" or "them." I wanted neither. Rather than choose between Group A or Group B, I opted to shut down RationalWikiWiki until the dust cleared. It cleared, and in my naiivity, I thought I could re-tool the place to where none of the factions could say the other could have an advantage in POV. Of course, I was wrong. RWW's POV was not the point, RWW was simply the vehicle by which these groups choose to fight, and once again (rather than pick sides when I consider both to be inherently full of it) I decided simply to cease funding the site. At this point, if people actually want to continue RWW, please let myself or Trent know. But I've had more than enough of being thrown into this stupid, childish factionalism on RationalWiki, and I will not give another goddamn dime towards it when, in reality, I want and wanted no part of it to begin with! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How much traffic could it have gotten? It couldn't have costed much to host. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 15:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It cost me $10/month on average to host it. If Hoover wants it, and all the stupid bullshit drama that comes with being owner, he can have it. Just let me know! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the interesting stuff is on RW now anyway. I do sometimes wonder what an article on one of our newer editors would be like though. Sophie^Wilder 13:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You got drama because you were a truly shitty manager and had bad judgment to let the turds you had in charge turn a stupid idea into something that unnecessarily perpetuated a nasty fight. 14:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I found the site very helpful, as I learned who to give a wide berth. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Many (probably most) RWW articles were about individual RW users, and all of these were deleted while the site was offline & have not been copied over to RW. Some of them were trashy stubs but others were very detailed & had a lot of effort put into them, + cover fairly significant stuff in the site's history & culture. As far as I can make out, there was no open discussion about the decision to mass-vaporise them. If RWW is to have any future (either as a separate site or within RW), this content should be resurrected so it can be sorted through properly. A gutted wiki full of red-links to deleted pages probably isn't something anyone really wants to take on. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Move?

Seeing as the site no longer exists, and it was only ever about us anyway, I think this should be moved to RationalWiki:RationalWikiWiki. What say you? Sophie^Wilder 19:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Seeing as how it exists and was only ever about us" is more a reason to delete the article, but moving it out of mainspace and into RW space makes more sense than keeping it here--Miekal 19:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

+1. Moved - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Now there needs to be the subpage RationalWiki:RationalWikiWiki/RationalWikiWikiWiki.

Not rational!

I thought this was supposed to be rational wiki. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.176.153.211 / talk / contribs} 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Was RationalWikiWiki supposed to be a Joke?

Was that site supposed to be a joke to poke fun at RationalWiki?S.H. DeLong (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no, it got pretty vicious and eventually turned against it's creators. Tielec01 (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How did that happen?--S.H. DeLong (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The owner took wiki business here and there too seriously and by the time he handed RWW to someone who wanted to run it as a joke it had pretty much had come to be viewed as a Bad Thing around here. - π 10:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And by the time it died, nobody gave a shit and the default decision was it was best gone - David Gerard (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bring Back RationalWikiWiki

Maybe this time as part of the RationalMedia Foundation (for stability). -Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 22:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Six (and a bit) months later

Back last October I said: "May I ask a) how you intend to stop drama and bitching happening on this relaunched version and b) how long will you able to maintain interest in the site? Six months? What happens after that?" I never got an answer. Six months later the site has avoided drama and bitching (EiK being a twat doesn't really count), but only by not having more than two or three regular users. It's ground to a halt, and 95% of the content is simply copied from the contents of Category:RationalWikiWiki. So, what was all that about? Maybe the current admins should do what A Storehouse of Knowledge did - lock the whole wiki and call it a day. Wilder^Bicycle 15:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As with most things, the rationale behind relaunching the site was "Why not?" RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Bryan See

@Spud@Bigs A BoN I can only assume is Bryan See creating a bunch of articles related to his pet grudge. Just a heads-up. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)