User talk:Stigmatella aurantiaca

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Stigmatella aurantiaca! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Citizendium

Leave the snark - it livens the article. Read the links that Aging Hippie posted above to get an idea of what a RW article is. Tielec01 (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please compare the current version of the Citizendium article on homeopathy with the version that was featured in 2009. There is a vast improvement between the two. For the article not to acknowledge this would mean that the article is propagating lies. There is a vast difference between using humor to make a point, versus using humor to cover up lies. I agree that the Citizendium model is broken, but we don't need to lie to make our point. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do appreciate the humor. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't use the word lies in a way that I am used to. It is not a lie to say that the Homeopathy article was horrible in 2009. It may or may not be true and worth saying that it has improved since then (which your edits didn't address in the slightest).Tielec01 (talk)

You reverted my edits before I finished reviewing the 2009 versus the 2015 versions of the article, so no, of course I hadn't had a chance to make note of that fact.

The way I read the guidelines, we don't have to be PC, but we do have to be factually accurate. Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart gained wide followings because, underneath the joking, they were reliable sources of news. I see the guidelines as urging us to have the same respect for the truth that they did. The mission of this site is to debunk crackpottery, having fun along the way. The lines that I want modified in the introduction go beyond simply having fun, and spill over into the arena of hate. Do we want to use the same tools that are used by the enemies of truth?

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not hateful, nor is it inaccurate to state that CZ had illusions of grandeur far beyond its eventual station. Damo^Hi 08:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nor have I objected to statements to that effect in the bulk of the article. Such statements meet standards of acceptable humor and snarkiness. The introduction of any article, however, needs to adhere to higher standards than the remaining bulk of the article, since that is what most people will read, if nothing else.

Case in point: What evidence is there for the statement that Citizendium editors love bureaucracy and Wikipedia-bashing?

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What exactly was hateful about the deleted lines (I certainly couldn't detect any particular hate)? I think Stigmatella missed the point that in addition to not adhering to Wikipedia NPOV, RW also doesn't encourage the "neutralesque" WP-style of writing, especially when an editor thinks the subject merits lampooning. I don't think the Citizendium article resembled any kind of hit piece and Stigmatella's revisions seemed a variant of Bowdlerising which substituted clear points with bland inoffensive and unobtrusive text.

Oh, and the continued use of words like "hateful" and "enemies of truth" (well at least it wasn't "Truth", or worse: "TRUTH") sets off all kinds of figurative alarm bells in my mind, but that's probably just me... ScepticWombat (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I do not claim to know the "truth". However, deliberate promulgation of statements contrary to fact are a tool of the parties that RationalWiki claims to be set against.

1. "...a ludicrous puff piece on homeopathy" If you read the featured 2009 version of the article, you will see that it was (in my opinion) too even-handed, deferring to the contributions of active homeopaths in its authorship, but it was not a puff piece uncritically accepting the claims of homeopathy.
2. "...a hobby site for a few individuals who enjoy bureaucracy, Wikipedia-bashing, or believing, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Citizendium is significant" Please document by showing how Wikipedia and RationalWiki are not hobby sites as opposed to the hobby-site nature of Citizendium; alternatively, provide a statement by any Citizendium contributor that they enjoy bureaucracy; alternatively, provide an example of Wikipedia-bashing, as opposed to even-handed criticism of the Wikipedia model; alternatively, provide a statement by any Citizendium contributor that Citizendium has approached its potential as an alternative to Wikipedia.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I have no particular position to support here, but I just went and read that 2009 article, and I think 'puff piece' is a pretty fair description. Quickly pulling a definition 'an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary.' - that seems to fit the bill fairly well IMO. Worm (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is "contrary to fact" in the two points raised?

1. See Worm's comment above. As Tielec pointed out, writing a puff piece on homoeopathy is not a good sign for a site wanting to provide a "specialist-written" alternative to Wikipedia. That Citizendium's homoeopathy article is better (or less bad) today is irrelevant in this context. In fact, it suggests that a Wikipedia-style haphazard version of crowdsourcing is what rescued Citizendium's "specialist-written" homoeopathy article from being a puff piece.
2. I'll bulletpoint the second entry for easy reference, because several issues are rolled into one:
   • Yes, RW is a hobby site (who has claimed anything to the contrary?), but the difference is that RW editors tend to realise this. Wikipedia is not (merely) a hobby site, if nothing else then due to its sheer scale. Also, unlike Citizendium, RW is pretty specific about not being Wikipedia, or even trying to be an alternative as a fount of knowledge (merely a wiki tackling specific issues and with a certain style).
   • As for the bureaucracy stuff, try scrolling down to this section and you'll find that there are already citations (feel free to move it to the intro if you think it's so important).
   • The demand for "a statement by any Citizendium contributor that Citizendium has approached its potential as an alternative to Wikipedia" is baffling. What Citizendium set out to be was exactly an alternative to WP, but the point of the entire RW article is that Citizendium isn't an alternative to WP, never has been, and why this is so.

I wonder why you're so up in arms about this? I mean you seem to be editing in good faith so far, but your objections do seem to be inching towards concern troll territory. And again: Where did the RW article (prior to your edits) verge into being "hateful" and why do you think these instances constitute hate(ful) speech? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Re "show how Wikipedia and RationalWiki are not hobby sites": See Whataboutism/Tu quoque. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand why Stigmatella aurantiaca would raise this issue but the problem is not the Citizendium article, which does raise valid points. The problem is the WIGO, which has become a personal sandbox for David Gerard and Martin Baldwin-Edwards to attack users on Citizendium, since both were banned there, in addition to a user from Edinburgh. It's fine debating an idea or concept, it's not fine for using this site to wage a personal grievance. Play the ball, not the man. 178.32.63.223 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)