User talk:ProblemChimp

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, ProblemChimp!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Hello. Welcome to RationalWiki. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome:) (which I've only just noticed, my bad). I'm into blues rather than jazz, meself. ProblemChimp (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you really helped me out with the userboxesN7.Geth (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Who's a sysop?[edit]

You are, that's who. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ta. ProblemChimp (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia article[edit]

I don't want to mess around with other people's projects, so I'll comment here rather than edit. I suggest using the FCP draft as master copy, it's the more recent.

I've had a look at the WP history of the RW article, and it's a mess: RationalWikiWikipedia; then, up to the top of the CP page, click "Redirect from RW", and click "View history". Earlier versions have been repeatedly smacked as non-notable. However, you may have found a couple of good citations, e.g. Keeler et al. WP loves 3rd-party recognition. I'm mildly optimistic.

Watch this space. I'll post a detailed critique after I've thought it all through. ProblemChimp (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Citations to RW in the proposed WP article[edit]

(Intermediate edit.) (Rather Very late at night, here; so bear with me.) I think that only three links to RW are essential, and that any more could smack of self promotion. (1) The main page (duh). (2) The SPOV guideline: it's important to make clear that S stands for scientific as well as snarky (i.e. emphasise our underlying seriousness). (3) The original breast cancer controversy (i.e. why RW was set up in the first place).

One of those other-shoes things. Imagine that you're a senior WP new-page patroller. (The furnishings of their Mom's basement differ from yours, but ignore that.) New page, been hammered before ... dodgy ... but, hello ... this new article contains only the essential minimum of links to the site itself ... every other citation is to a 3rd-party source ... there are several, and they're good ones too ... hello ...

I.e. don't dilute. Exaggerating my point: 200 citations (197 to RW) can be a lot less impressive than 6 (3 to RW).

Bookmark everything, you might need it later. It's easier to expand an article than to create one. ProblemChimp (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the draft of 20 January 2015[edit]

Did you notice who'd nixed an earlier version of the WP article on RW, on 27 April 2013?

I think this draft is very close, and with a bit of tweaking should be ready to go. The lead para reads well. I really like the splits between the two versions of the origin of RW, and between positive and negative reception - good objective NPOV stuff. I like the infobox (I've usually been too lazy to create one) and the categories.

Check the Metapedia link, which shows up as an error in the draft.

There are two RW redirect pages in WP: RationalWiki and Rationalwiki. The first should be the new article space, and the second redirected towards it instead of to CP.

I've nowiki'ed my citations etc. for ease of reading and copying. They may also contain stuff which RW doesn't support. I haven't checked to see if they compile properly in WP. I think they should, but...

I would use indexed subsections under History, thus:
=== Origin ===
==== Los Angeles Times version ====
==== RationalWiki version ====
=== Subsequent developments ===

Under "Mission and content", I would add a sentence or two about SPOV supported by this reference, to make the point that RW is scientific first and snarky second.

Under "Positive", a bluelink for you - [[Walter Lippmann|W. Lippmann]]

I would rename the "Criticism" subsection to "Negative", to directly oppose "Positive".

I did some searching: Google can often yield different results depending on exact wording and on location.

(1) I failed to find the 2007 Metro mention.

(2) Negative criticism. This website isn't the best of reliable sources, but there is a WP article about it. I'd summarise the criticism, and perhaps include a quote or two. <ref>{{cite web |url= |website=[[lesswrong]].com |title=The Problem With Rational Wiki |date=October 26, 2012 |last=Konkvistador |accessdate=January 23, 2015 }}</ref>

(3) Positive criticism. IMO this one is an absolute corker, the source is as good as they get: mention in a top-level academic publication - directly related to RW mission, and bang up to date. It may only have got into Google in the last couple of days. I haven't included my link in the citation template, because I've seen WP reject ones like that. Here's your quote:

{{quote|text= There are a few online resources and periodical articles that provide some information about pseudoscientific theories. Such information helps non-experts to acquire the necessary knowledge to avoid being deceived. One of the online resources that can be distinguished is international source RationalWiki that was created to organize and categorize knowledge about pseudoscientific theories, personalities and organizations.}}

<ref>{{cite book |title=Intelligent Systems'2014: Proceedings of the 7th [[IEEE]] International Conference Intelligent Systems IS’2014, September 24{{ndash}}26, 2014, Warsaw, Poland, Volume 2: Tools, Architectures, Systems, Applications. Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 323 |at=A Method of Automatic Detection of Pseudoscientific Publications, page 533 et seq. |last=Shvets |first=Alexander |display-editors=3 |editor-last1=Filev |editor-first1=D. |editor-last2=Jabłkowski |editor-first2=J. |editor-last3=Kacprzyk |editor-first3=J. |editor-last4=Krawczak |editor-first4=M. |editor-last5=Popchev |editor-first5=I. |editor-last6=Rutkowski |editor-first6=L. |editor-last7=Sgurev |editor-first7=V. |editor-last8=Sotirova |editor-first8=E. |editor-last9=Szynkarczyk |editor-first9=P. |editor-last10=Zadrozny |editor-first10=S. |publisher=[[Springer Publishing]] |date=October 2, 2014 |isbn=978-3-319-11310-4 }}</ref>

Add this immediately above the list of categories (to sort on LC rather than cap W):

Add these two at the very end, after two blank lines:

Feel free to show me any updated draft, so that I can sprinkle it holy water and goats' urine. ProblemChimp (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


All of these notes, sources, etc. are very good. I'm incorporating them now.
Two questions:On the talkpage I list a ton of citations of RW. (1) While the 4 descriptions that I found of RW definitely should be, can any of these be added to the article? I thought the Daily Telegraph citation, the Snopes citation, the Perspectives on Information citation, and the Wikipedia U citation were all possible inclusions. (2) Does said list improve claims of RW's notability? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Another note: What would [[Walter Lippmann|W. Lippmann]] be for in Positive? None of my two cites are from him. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Another note: I've already looked through the RW article's history, and as you say it's a gigantic pile of article recreations, deletions, redirections, all slightly different and all a little mad. I'm sure that it won't help. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright: Here's the updated article. I still have more than 3 references to RW; the ones that are there don't seem overly gratuituous. There are 4 references to RW: 1: To RW's general disclaimer, to support the claim "Volunteer contributors". 2: To RW's History page, to support RW's version of events. 3: To RW's Donations page, to show how the RMF is funded. 4: To RW's What is a RW article page, to support SPOV. I think 1 and 3 could be removed, but don't hurt. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It's still very little like a Wikipedia article. Sections shouldn't be divided into positive & negative, LA Times version, RW version, etc. RW pages shouldn't be cited, & neither should Metapedia, LessWrong, etc. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
On the citing RW bit: The American Thinker article, the LessWrong article, and the Metapedia article all cite those respective sites. I'm uncertain of teh rulez though.
On citing MP and LW: Why not?
On dividing up sections: What alternative do you propose? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest forgetting the whole thing. Citing Metapedia or LessWrong contributors is like citing YouTube comments on doodles on a toilet wall. It's completely unencyclopedic. Strip it down to reliable sources (as per WP's definition) & you'll find there's only a couple of things to cite & very little to say.
Why are you ploughing on with this? You already declared a conflict of interest, which means you're not a good candidate to draft an article, and your behaviour bears that out when you do things like adding new stuff to policy pages so you can then cite it as RW policy in your proposed Wikipedia article. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
On the citing RW point: no change
On the citing MP and LW point: Why is MP or LW comparable to YT comments? YT comments don't get a WP article; MP and LW both do. While they may not be RS, they certainly are cited in the MP and LW pages.
On the diving sections point: no change
On the editing the What is an RW page point: I edited it because I knew I'd seen it somewhere (the CS) but didn't remember where, so I added it there, because it's also relevant to what a RW article is (admittedly not in that section). If I'd remembered it was in CS, I'd have cited that; but I've decided that talking about RW's goal of humor is more important anyway. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"YT comments don't get a WP article; MP and LW both do." <- Does this argument actually make sense to you? You realise there is actually a Wikipedia article about YouTube as well? How is your citing a "LessWrong contributor" actually different to citing a YouTube contributor? Wiki content shouldn't be cited for the same reason, and for the reason you've demonstrated in your own actions: it can be changed at any point by anybody, so can't be viewed as an authoritative source. It might be reasonable to cite the site missions as they are relatively static (apart from the last one being added a few years ago), but that's probably as far as it goes. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't care about whether MP or LW's criticisms are included. WP:RS would suggest against their inclusion; the only reason I included them is that they both have a WP page (which YouTube uploaders and commenters do not). I will remove them.
On citing RW: any thoughts?
On dividing sections: any thoughts? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
On citing RW: wiki content is poor sourcing. I've already told you that & explained why.
On dividing sections: splitting commentary on the site into such arbitrary distinctions as "positive" & "negative" really isn't in the spirit of NPOV, and listing multiple "versions" of the site's history just looks bizarre.
There really isn't enough substantial sourcing or notability to pull together a Wikipedia article out of this. As it stands, about three quarters of what you've written is ripe for deletion on sourcing or OR grounds, which would leave maybe three or four verifiable statements - nowhere near enough to warrant an article, which there's also no demand for since nothing links to it nor is likely to. It's a waste of time & will be deleted almost as soon as it's posted. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Weaseloid, I've updated the draft. There are 2 citations of RW, both of which seem stable. The history section includes only the Los Angeles Times' version. The criticism section is no longer divided and doesn't include LW, MP, or RWW. I think it still is a decent article. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Way too late at night etc. I haven't even looked at your latest draft yet. Meanwhile:
  1. I deliberately exaggerated my point about internal (i.e. RW) references. All I meant was - don't distract a WP new-page reviewer from solid 3rd party stuff by including too many RW links.
  2. Walter Lippmann - that adds a bluelink inside the quote you'd found. I.e., it doesn't just refer to some guy or other called W. Lippmann, hardly famous inside his own family, but to the Walter Lippmann.
  3. Daily Telegraph, Snopes, etc. - good sources. Include them. Bluelink your references to the relevant WP articles on those sources. Also: tail-eating stuff into WP should be bluelinks, not references.
  4. I thought you stood a chance of locking your article into WP even before I gave it the once-over. You'd found a couple of good-looking references. That historical ref to the LA Times is needed, but is a bit ho-hum otherwise. Reliable sources from the last couple of years? now you're talkin'!
  5. Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, I've added an entry to List of Internet encyclopediasWikipedia
I'll get back to you. Watch this space. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"Tail-eating"? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You still there, ProblemChimp? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"Tail-eating"? I did say it was too late at night.
I say, go for it: I like the latest draft. TY to everyone for their input. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
One last thing: Is this a good statement to begin discussion to recreate? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
On the conflict of interest point - I've run into it. I think commonsense applies. If you're writing or updating an article about your wikinotable pet, or about the company you founded or who is paying you:- post on the talk page, or email an uninvolved editor active on that article suggesting an edit - and accept their decision whatever it might be.
There's no WP rule against creating articles on stuff you know about (duh). Do your best, and flag up the bits you can't support. In some of my articles, I've included things like {{citation needed |date=whatever |reason=This just has to be true but I can't find a reliable source}} - i.e. this is original research under WP rules, but if someone can find a reliable source: cite it, and remove my marker. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If&when you slam your new article into WP - IMO there would be no harm at all in starting a thread on its talk page, to the effect that - "I'm well aware that articles on this subject have been created and deleted before. I think it is wikinotable - please look at the references I've found". ProblemChimp (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, it begins. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A test[edit]

Bonjeur vous baseur Aller en enfer

Je m'encule de ton opinion. ProblemChimp (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)