RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2397Goal: $5000


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon internet.svg

This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Wikipedia article, again[edit]

About the newly added link: RW is not an encyclopedia, and those sources are horrible. Also, there's no "us".--ZooGuard (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Use for references[edit]

Just so I'm clear on this: It's OK to use wikipedia for references, right? Greatnecro (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Can and may I create a page based on my research on the administrators' behaviour, with evidence and such, Greatnecro and ZooGuard? — Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs 07:57, 7 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Probably best not. When somebody did that here for Portuguese Wikipedia, it didn't go down well. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
What happened, WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel? Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
Put it like this: "he LANCBd" Scream!! (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Scream!! and ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel, I was already in Wikipedia. It's just that I thought that even with the most rational arguments on why I shouldn't be blocked for a simple spelling mistake or why they should calm down on me the same five administrators would gang up on me and threaten to block me. I still have my log, and unblocked, so maybe we could use that to test out the administrators. Believe me, just sending them an apology message would incite them. I have the evidence I need. Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My own (limited) experience with writing a Wikipedia article was rather sobering for me. I wrote an article about a figure in the ROA, "Russian Army Of Liberation", which collaborated with Germany in WW2. The article was basically a translation of one on the same figure in the Russian-language version of Wikipedia. The individual concerned was formerly a Soviet journalist and played a significant role in ROA propaganda but he disappeared mysteriously in the summer of 1944 near Berlin, possibly abducted by the Gestapo. There were rumours he was in fact Jewish, and these may have been a factor in his abduction, if this was what indeed happened. Basically, his story was a minor but fascinating sideshow of WW2. My article was repeatedly refused on quality grounds (it was my first try, admittedly) but I addressed all the issues brought up by administrators, adding that it was essentially a translation, to which the reply was that perhaps the Russian Wikipedia has different standards. Anyhow, it was never accepted, even though English-language Wikipedia seems to accept all sorts of garbage as articles. Ι had a feeling they found the subject unappealing but never admitted to it. After that experience, I lost interest in writing for Wikipedia. Philosophyfootball (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia statistics[edit]

... can be found here [1]: if WP was a nation what world rankings would it have? (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The 15 functions of Wikipedia[edit]

As it is coming up to WP's 15th birthday, what are its functions?

  • The source of all (mis)information (both, at the same time, in the same article)
  • Gresham's Law as applied to encyclopedias
  • A point of first resort.
  • A point of multiple resort (see all the websites copying from WP).
  • A fruitful ground for Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells and their relatives.
  • A fruitful source of complaints by 'nobody agrees with our (so off-beat they are out of tune) theorists.
  • A (mis)quote mine.

What others? (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia has '36 million articles' - could an approximate date be added (thus enabling other pedants to update it). Anna Livia (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)