From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this site actually worth anything more than a note in WIGOclogs? This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is more interesting than Wiki4Cam atleast. tmtoulouse 23:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The founder is very active (more so that PJR), and at least tries to honestly engage us RWians who popped in, at least at the "meta-site function" level. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone there called themselves skeptics. Or even non-pseudoskeptics. It's hard to be a non-pseudoskeptic all the time, especially since believers and skeptics are subject to the same pitfalls in our pseudoskepticism article. Can you find any claim made about the POV of the site or the people there? The nearest would be non-pseudoskeptic, but everyone's that. Tarantallegra (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if I can re-find the gist of which I was distilling. I agree that it's a very "fluid" place, I won't say "disorganized", it's more a matter of style in that they have more of an "un-mission" in contrast with our very specific "mission". ħumanUser talk:Human 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If you read the to-do list, it's getting a little clearer: to document, but especially to do controversy. Really want to engage skepticism. [1] Tarantallegra (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Your diff link is like 2 days old. More has happened since then. Tarantula, you are kinda lame. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you so pwned us with your incredible anigif. I am left with no credible response other than... yawn. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
True. Tarantallegra (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Orange. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay I fold. Is that some bit of web culture I haven't come across, an inside RatWi joke, or is your soulfree brain doing some major gear grinding? Tarantallegra (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Preaching to the gallery[edit]

WikiSynergy, like most similar websites (not excluding RW), will find itself preaching to the gallery. The only people who contribute will be those who agree with the (unclear?) premises of the site. Attempting to get opposing points of view to indulge in "collegiate" discussion are doomed from the start when anyone can find a bigger and better site that agrees with their view from the start. Of course you will get the snarkers who continue to bait (I hesitate to say "troll) those with whom they disagree but you won't come to any meeting of minds. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 07:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we put that in the Why skeptics lose article. Anyway, there is no thought of trying for a meeting of minds, we aren't dumb. We're trying to put stuff up side by side. Like if you could put up refutations at Conservapedia.... or they could refute here. Tarantallegra (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"The right to merge"[edit]

For those of you familiar with the wiki-term "the right to fork", that is, to start a new project by using the existing content of a previous one (perhaps for a new POV, whatever), I think it would be cool if there was an explicit "right to merge" (to combine two small, limping, projects into one hopefully more robust larger one) supported fully by the MW software. Because CAMwiki and WS ought to merge. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what people are like though. Starting up your own wiki is great at first, but then becomes hard work. All you get is the ego-boost from starting it (especially if you only started it after a fall-out at another one). I'm seeing an increasing number of mythology, paranormal and paganism wikis turn up, most with minimal, repetitive content. I had a go at rescuing one earlier this year but enthusiasm soon wears off when you're on your own. Merging would be too damaging to the egos of the people who start them. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wigo WS[edit]

Should we start one up?

-2WS shows it's extensive knowledge of Science.

Etc. etc. etc. Though, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's the characters that make WIGO:CP addictive. Currently this is just Purple Scissor's blog with Human editing occaisionally. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested the same thing myself but in all honesty they don't have the same level of whatthefuckiness as CP. OK, we may think that they believe ridiculous things but PS's discourse with Human has been quite reasonable. Until the monomaniacs and sociopaths take up permanent residence it will probably have to wait. Unfortunately, lie aSoK we seem to have been the main vsitors so far and that's never going to provide enough lulz for the long term. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the other problem, PS is fairly reasonable, there's no real full-on evangelising, banhammering or authoritarianism to speak of. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 16:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikisynergy is not ideal, however might I suggest the scepcop forums as more interesting? tmtoulouse 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not (where are they?)? One thing that is useful about WS is often their sources provide much lulz and excellent footnotes for our articles. Well, what little I dug into at EVP yielded a few gems, at least. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I might sign up and fill in some blanks for them. I'm not particularly for or against WS and it's mission, but it looks like PS could do with some help filling out stuff like Science as posted above. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 10:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of CUR[edit]

I think he would feel at home there, he was always telling us to be open-minded when we were laughing at stupid ideas. His definition of rational was fairly close to theirs. - π 00:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell, tell...??? Tarantallegra (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I think he was already informed. Tarantallegra (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Giving a platform[edit]

Does encouraging idiots like Tom Butler condone their rubbish?

The man encourages the bereaved and deluded to hear (and lately see) voices and images in noise. Don't know if he makes money at it but if he does he should be stopped, not allowed to promulgate his rubbish on the site.

"Research indicates that, when your physical body can no longer support you in the physical world, some aspect of your personality will continue in a different part of reality." [2]

He should be stamped on - not encouraged. Threnody (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Shades of TK[edit]

Remind you of anyone?

(Block log); 22:16 . . Purple Scissor (Talk | contribs) blocked Lament (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (troll)
(Deletion log); 22:15 . . Purple Scissor (Talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of WikiSynergy:Community Roundtable (hid content, edit summary, username for 1 revision)
(diff) (hist) . . m WikiSynergy:Community Roundtable‎; 22:15 . . (-110) . . Purple Scissor (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Lament (Talk) to last version by Purple Scissor)
(diff) (hist) . . WikiSynergy:Community Roundtable‎; 22:00 . . (+110) . . (username removed) (comment removed) [deleted]
(User creation log); 21:59 . . Lament (Talk | contribs) New user account
Threnody (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well.... There's a reason I gave up on WikiSynergy long ago. You are most welcome, obviously, to contribute here instead. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 07:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what Lament did, but the place is fairly open. With the caveat that one has to co-exist with pro-woo articles written by loonies, a skeptic can create refuting pieces, discuss things, etc. Problem is, of course, the site got flattened and hasn't really come back to life yet, and the only woomeister there is Tom Butler, who has a nasty personality. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Some BoN's edit[edit]

Regarding this radical change to the article, I think that (while the edition about why the site shut down is mis-informed), the remainder of the edit could/should some how be blended into the article itself. What say other editors? The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 22:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it, I didn't even pretend to read it. Theb wholesale alteration of the article was just too much at one go. If the BoN was rigt then OK but discussion before such a major edit is surely mandatory. Oompa loompa (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The deleted sections were, so far as I can tell, simply material stated at the beginning of the site which never once had any sort of impact ont he site itself. I fail to see how it's useful to spend vast amounts of page space on something that's manifestly inaccurate, only applied briefly years ago, or is written in bizarre coded language. (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How to get editing privileges?[edit]

How does one get editing privileges? I think I would fit in well with the WikiSynergy community. --(((Zack Martin))) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

status, August 2012[edit]

Last edit I noticed: 28 February 2012. IP editing is disabled, and there is no active page for creating an account. Without an account, one can't send email, say, to the most recently active administrator. Unattended wikis are a nuisance, once the spammers find them. I don't wonder that this was shut down, but ... providing a path for non-spammers to edit would not be so difficult. There are many active RW users who obviously have accounts there. They might even be administrators. Anyone interested in helping with this?

The only 'crat is Purple Scissor. Administrators, though, can create new user accounts, and I recognize as admins there who are active here:


I see that as of July 2013 this article seems to turn up in recent changes a lot. I just wonder, "why?". Perhaps the article should include some speculation about why such counter-reality wikis are doomed to eventually rapidly (or eventually) die? It might make it more useful.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that that only reason it's been getting attention is because it finally went off the air. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This being a wiki, people will edit whatever strikes their fancy. I've written about soap, of all things. Doctor Dark (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes to all. It shows up on recent changes cuz I tend to make lots of small changes instead of doing them all in one pass like most people. - Leuders (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the story here is not why all woo-pedias are doomed to fail (The Red Pill seems to be alive and well, for example) but rather why this particular one went off the rails so spectacularly. I personally think it was their not being able to recognize their wiki's underlying motivation: a deep, deep anger and resentment toward skeptics, possibly fueled by a few of its founding members being booted off wikipedia for trying to force the encyclopedia to give crank ideas equal stature to reality. - Leuders (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have disappeared[edit]

Site domain appears to have been abandoned.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

see note in the lede - "WikiSynergy finally expired for good in 2012."--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone should fix or delete all the broken links in the article. Annquin (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Ya OK already, I dun it. Leuders (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)