RationalWiki talk:Proposed Article of the Weak

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from User talk:Tmtoulouse/new)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

New sections should be created to discuss actual proposals, if they seem worthwhile.

Meta discussion[edit]

Scheduling[edit]

Do we really need to try to put up a new one every week? On another tack, would that be a good discipline to try to stick to so it doesn't turn in to a new one every 3 months? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

If we are unable to come up with one, or no one wants to do the work, then I don't think it is the end of the world to let one slide. But I also think part of the value of this feature is having a good sized number of articles go through the vetting proccess, and having new content reliably delivered is always good. I thought we might have to let the first one extend a little longer to get people voting on it, but I am pretty happy with the 40-50 votes we will get on it. It will provide a nice spread for analysis. I think we are ready for a new one on Monday if we get a pick. tmtoulouse irritate 20:40, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
I agree. And you are going to leave the voting and comments (closed=no) turned on for a little longer anyway, right? Are you going to add a "Previous Weak Articles" link to the extension, make it a sub page, that links via dpl to all the other sub pages, then we move previous AotWs to sub page names? Let me rephrase that from "Are you going to" to "Please do this" ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 20:43, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Yea, there is no reason to "close" the voting while we continue to let it grow. Eventually, archived votes should be closed, so that is why I implemented the close feature. If we get one for this Monday I will get all that setup on Sunday. tmtoulouse irritate 20:46, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Kick starting new AotW fodder[edit]

I had an idea the other day while looking at this. We could just "look ahead" at what CP will be running and see if any are good targets for the AotW. We can also look at the ones they have run in the past. I think it would be cool, and kind of funny, if at least some of time our AotW was the same as theirs... thoughts? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:08, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Actual proposals[edit]

Googling "conservapedia" (No, I haven't bookmarked it) gives a list of its most popular articles. Discounting Kangaroo (so last year, darling) and Examples of bias in Wikipedia (too meta?) we have:

as possible candidates. cp:Barack Obama would be a good one to put up too, should attract interest.

I'd better stop there, while rummaging in cp:Talk:Genesis I discovered a sensible, intelligent conversation I had with Philip J Rayment. I need a lie down. Anyway, I hereby propose the above four links. Totnesmartin 18:46, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, we could really mess with them by choosing their own weekly featured article... Totnesmartin 18:52, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should do a non-CP one next week? Just so we get into the habit of not being exclusively CP focused? tmtoulouse irritate 17:06, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Good idea. Also, we don't have to change it every week, do we? Just when we are ready with a new one? Any bright ideas where to start? How close to "newsy" do we want to go? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:03, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
There's newsy stuff by the bukkitlode at WIGO - perhaps AOTW doesn't have to be topical at all. Having "done" creationism for the first one, we could go elsewhere this week (eg a conspiracy or alt health site?) I also think that it should be a weekly article - it'll be a lot easier to set up now the coding has been sorted out, and the high(ish) turnover of articles will attract readers - seeing the same thing up there for too many days turns people away from websites, apparently. Totnesmartin 17:16, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

David Kirby's Evidence of Harm[edit]

I have put up my proposal for AOTW, it is a non-cp, non-evolution, non-religious, semi-non-political article that I think fits our mission well. It is a good test for our "criteria" and how well they might extrapolate out. It is also cool cause Kirby has had some interaction with RW participants in the past. Thoughts? tmtoulouse irritate 18:16, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Lookin' it over. You should install the spole-cheker in your firefox ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 19:07, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
I think it might be a decent choice. But first ;) let's get some of the site's other "writers" (not scientists) to edit Template:AOTW_Descriptions? I like what you added, but now we need to copyedit/rewrite, improve flow, make ourselves look smart, etc. That's my short-term, over the weekend opinon. That addressed, I am for using this new AotW starting Monday. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:21, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
I asked AKjeldson if he would take a look at the whole thing. So does that mean I can start running my anovas soon? I am itching to do it... tmtoulouse irritate 00:31, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't know what your "anovas" are, perhaps you should keep them to yourself? Also, let's get Doc in on this editing thing, re: above link. Brainz!!!! We want many! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:34, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Analysis of Variance....much fun to be had...though as a Bayesian I shouldn't be doing them, they are just easier to work with. Maybe I will include some Bayesian analysis as well.....this is going to be fun! I thought Doc might have fallen under the "scientist" category. tmtoulouse irritate 00:38, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
I hassled Doc to chime in. PS, "anovas" = "Analysis of Variance"??? WTF? Who ever, ever, ever, used that abbreviation? Now I have to go back and wp: it to know what the hell you are drinking about! (in "preview" only, of course) ħumanUser talk:Human 00:42, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
You don't have enough data yet. Sorry this project is slow in delivering your Master's, but you are doing it on the cheap and easy, after all. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:43, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Moon landing hoax[edit]

I'd like to propose the Moon landing hoax for our next article. The primary site for the hoax claims is this; I'll add counterclaim sites soon. Wikipedia's article is good on the rebuttal, but does anyone know of any others? Totnesmartin 18:13, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

...how much pwnage do you want for this?


My favourite one has always been the Bad Astronomy one. I had thought that Snopes had something detailed on it as well, but I can't turn it up now. But I'm up for article of the weak.--Bobbing up 07:33, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

It's ready to go now,i think. does anyone else have comments? Totnesmartin 05:40, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

I haven't reviewed the sites, etc., but it looks good to me. Is our article reasonably good? After that question I am all for this going in Sunday night. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:28, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
Before going "live", does anyone think it should more/less/different slider bars or some nifty checkboxes, like Trent is working on here? Or just run with what we have? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I created generic pseudoscience data files and set this to use them with voting closed. Take a look and see what you think. tmtoulouse irritate 14:18, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Please delay moving the new AOTW[edit]

I am going to be working on a significant alteration in the code behind AOTW. Let me be the one to move the new AOTW over when the time is right, I will be working diligently on it tomorrow so hopefully will get it done but what I am trying to do is not easy so I may not be able to do it in one night. The current AOTW may need to stay up an extra day. Thanks. tmtoulouse irritate 03:02, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't going to do it as I have now idea how to do things like resetting the sliders etc. Totnesmartin 14:25, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Well what do you think about the sliders/check boxes I have set up now for it? Any alterations/deletions/additions/suggestions would be appreciated. tmtoulouse irritate 14:28, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Are they all going to be on the page? I mean, yay tickybox and all, but do we want people to get lost in the middle? But if there's only a few per page from this spread, then yes it's a good range, as far as I can tell. Totnesmartin 15:14, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Each AotW gets its own subpages set up with only the sliders and checkboxes deemed appropriate for it. So the trick now is to figure out what they should be for the Moon landing article... (you can make up new ones, as well) ħumanUser talk:Human 16:36, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I mean really, how many is too many? Is it really that overwhelming? Anyway, I would like to get the new AOTW in place fairly soon so be bold any offer any suggestions that can get this moving forward. tmtoulouse irritate 18:51, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Put it on the main page, it's about five minutes to Tuesday here. Totnesmartin 18:55, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Once it gets moved we can't change the vote options. So now is the time to prune, improve, etc. tmtoulouse irritate 19:05, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
There's no real requirement to do this weekly or to always do it Sunday night. We spell it "weak" for more than one reason ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 20:51, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Yea but should still aim for it roughly, and we have one ready to go if we just work out a last few details. tmtoulouse irritate 20:52, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
True. Why not just pick the ones you think apply and launch it? By the next changeover (we should work on an eight day week!) people will be more used to these new options, the control they have, and will be thinking of them right from the beginning. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:59, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I pretty much did, I erred on the side of inclusion, but ones that I think would be good are currently up. tmtoulouse irritate 21:00, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

We need a new one if possible for Monday Aug 18[edit]

Perhaps we should make wiki4cam famous? Surely they have a "passable" homeopathy article or something? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:08, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Or do we go back to CP for another "classic"? Easy work there... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:09, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I am tempted to recommend doing a CP article. So I guess maybe that's what I will do. We have a nice side-by-side of their atheism article here? Meh? tmtoulouse irritate 01:33, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure we do. Our atheism article isn't formatted very well, as I recall. Well, we all of Sunday... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia:Atheism is what I was thinking of. tmtoulouse irritate 02:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Let's use the intercom to call all hands on deck on our atheism article? (With a 24 hour expiry ;)) ħumanUser talk:Human 02:05, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
How about tomorrow give people a chance to respond to the existing APB? tmtoulouse irritate 02:14, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I wuz wrong, our abortion article is an abortion. We have a decent atheism article. Let's rip Kendoll a new one. You want to wait a week for a new one and figure out the intercom thing, that's fine with me. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't know if we have to wait a whole week but we were a few days late getting this one up anyway, we could do an 8 day week think till we get back on schedule or something. Also Susan came up with the idea of targeted intercom messages that I kind of liked. So people with an interest in specific topics could sign up to receive announcements about them. So AOTW interested folks would sign up for the AOTW list, etc. tmtoulouse irritate 02:31, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, no, maybe, I agree. Let's get the intercom working, AotW does not have to be weekly. But Ken's Atheism article would be a prize. The "intro" need to be well written though, with all his SEO crap documented. And, yes, Susan's idea is good... and complicated of course. Which you love... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:44, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Concur, let us aim for getting the Atheism article up there by Tues night? Need deadlines or I don't work. tmtoulouse irritate 02:46, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
OK, let's try this idea - we let Sunday ride as people chime in on the intercom. Then we send out a request for AotW input on the atheism thing? And hope we build some great text? Remember, we still need to get the community on board on the whole AotW thing, most are oblivious, I think? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:49, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Which is why I want to go back to some CP article for a couple weeks. The non-cp articles were a good stress test for the concept and lead to some improvements but to build a following, for better or worse, CP is the bait. tmtoulouse irritate 02:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Yup, and the easy target. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:10, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Proposal: CP:Atheism. It's idiotic, our article is pretty decent, all we need are a few good external links and some text. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:05, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

AOTW Main page[edit]

Is it worth it to include a "what" our AOTW is on the main page? tmtoulouse irritate 00:19, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yeah, yup, sure. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:55, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

CP's Atheism article AOTW[edit]

It has been put forward and accepted by proclamation (default) that this week's RationalWiki:Article of the Weak should be conservapedia's cp:atheism article. What we need is a succinct description and recommended links to refer people to. We have a side-by-side of the article and our own atheism article. What else? Also what needs input is the choice of "sliders" and "checkboxes." These can be altered in two places Template:Sliders/conservapedia and Template:Check/conservapedia. If people have feedback but don't want to alter the templates (it is a little intimidating I know) please just leave it here on the talk. And thanks for helping out! tmtoulouse irritate 00:41, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I can't seem to vote. Or see the "consensus" bits. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!I laugh until my head comes off. I swallow until I burst. 00:58, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
That's cause they are "disabled" as it is not "live" yet. We are constructing it for the live aotw. We need the various elements in place first. tmtoulouse irritate 01:00, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
We gotta get some people to help out with this... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:54, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
How? tmtoulouse irritate 20:56, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, go 'round their houses and beat on their doors? Hire a town crier to do it for us? Post a message site-wide begging for help? Hehe... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:43, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Bah, or just do it. tmtoulouse irritate 22:45, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Got some good ELs? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:35, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Well we have:

tmtoulouse irritate 14:49, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, looking good. I'd forgotten about the SxS - that should be the first link we offer up. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:00, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Should we pick one or two good ones from infidels and a good writer to refer to? Bertrand Russel is always good :). Or link to the repositories? tmtoulouse irritate 15:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
I think we should do the work of picking the good ones, although we can say where there are more (the repositories). And, yes, Russell is an excellent choice. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:15, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

September 1 AotW[edit]

Tmt suggested one of the CP "Liberal X" articles, I think it might be fun to do all of them... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

all at once? given that we are just starting the politcal games in the US, "liberal" v. real liberal would be fun to do. — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
I dunno... yeah, all at once. A lot of them aren't really so much articles as short bulleted lists, and the sheer number of them and their idiocy adds to the humor, and broadens the target. Their "liberal" article could be the main choice, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:24, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Shall we start by making a list of what articles are over there? tmtoulouse irritate 18:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Someone has/had a "matrix" of them somewhere - it may be in the CP namespace by now. But, yes, let's list them here. A simple search ought to find them. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:42, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Conveniently, they all seem to be listed at cp:liberal:

ħumanUser talk:Human 18:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Working on trimming it down to what we should actually put up. tmtoulouse irritate 19:06, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia only?[edit]

I'm sure this has already been asked, but I must've missed the answer—is the Article of the Weak limited to Conservapedia articles only? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Not at all, in fact, we have already done one or two that weren't CP. ħumanUser talk:Human 12:42, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Good, good. Once I get my own internet connection back, I hope to contribute to AotW regularly. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:50, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Excellent, this team could use a few members ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 14:23, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Sarah Palin[edit]

It's CP's aotw, let's jump on it. It's work :( though.

We need to pick appropriate slider bars, please help before I try to finalize to tomorrow. Also I'll have to archive the last AotW, any help appreciated.

Se re: SP, we link to our article, WP's article, and where else? Any assistance appreciated...

something I think I am missing in RW: Proposed AOTW[edit]

I need a revalation on the purported location of the button I am supposed to use to submit ratings. Thieh 00:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do I click to send ratings?
Hmm, it should be just below the check off buttons - just below quote mining, in this case. You might want to report this to Nx. Oh, and tell him your OS and browser too. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Rating is closed, that's why. (closed=yes parameter) --  Nx/talk  08:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for May 09 who knows when replacement[edit]

Someone is working on a side-by-side of AIG's (I think) take on the Martian volcano thingie. I think it might make a nice AotW target once our SxS is ready as the on-site rebuttal. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the original article is sufficiently AOTW-ish. It's more about expalining the potential for creationists to use Mars data than an analysis of the data itself, unfortuneately. However if anyone else thinks differently, pipe up. Totnesmartin 09:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like just about anything, this has been up for months. - π 09:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
OK then, I'll finish Tharsis. Should we rename to include surrounding regions? Totnesmartin 10:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok I have started the article when it is done it goes here. - π 10:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Global flood on Mars when the vapour pressure does not even allow water to be in liquid. I think we have new theories to debunk for Noah's ark. But then I don't think it has enough wingnuttery. Thieh 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the article's pretty tame compared to previous AOTWs. there must be something out there... Totnesmartin 12:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we want to reschedule for June instead? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Naw, we can just activate it as soon as it's ready. We're not on a schedule. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll change the title for the section then. Revert if you find that not appropriate. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to put a quick AOTW until we get the Mars one up and running. - π 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I am in no state to critically read anything (guess why), but the latest ARJ article (dated a month ago- lotsa science for those guys, they seem to average one article per month) is titled "Implications of Polonium Radiohalos in Nested Plutons of the Tuolumne Intrusive Suite, Yosemite, California." ORLY? When I look at even the most niche peer-reviewed journal, I can at least recognize the titles as a English-based sentences. This, on the other hand, is absolute word salad. I guess they got tired of being called unscientific and decided that incomprehensiblity makes you look s-m-r-t. I'm not the smartest man in the world, but I feel that I can hold my own. If I am just too stupid to understand this sentence, please correct me. But otherwise, I ask, WTF? Corry 03:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Queue it up?[edit]

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/About_Us

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/mn37357/The_Popularity_of_Atheism Might be fun to play with. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this one. - π 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a winner, after the thing it is now, and after the Mars thing that has had so much work. Of course, I got this via wigo cp, and their borken news. How hard can this be? As hard as Trent & I made the frickin' process. I wish we had an easier way to process these (that list of how to change it is stupefying!). How's it going with getting AotW updates on RC? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple off PZ Myer's blog[edit]

As good as I think the robots one is, I think we should get started with the rapture one as it is starting very soon. - π 03:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything for a new AOTW. Pi, can you figure out a way to make AOTW "comments" turn up on recent changes? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The AOTW extension is pretty old, I think it only just held together during the server move. It is about last on Nx's to do list. - π 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sad that it is. Seriously, the AOTW is mine & Trent's most serious failure. He had the idea, and I helped make it "pretty", but I utterly failed in the "pretty" - as in user friendly - part. And then we never figured out how to make it turn up on RC. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

False flag flu[edit]

Looks like a good one to me. Shall we try and get it mocked up? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Virtually all serious modern pandemics were the result of vaccines."!!! me again

Look, I found a crazy![edit]

[1] Here be a helping of Nostradamus, a hypothetical possibly existing comet that has not been discoverd but MUST exist, and the 2012 "Oh noes!" syndrome. And semi-time cube styling. Always a plus. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ A sig not even he can predict! 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is my favorite reading... "Many interpret Olympus Festulan to mean Mt. Olympus, near Greece. As this mountain is close to 10,000 ft high, we are looking at a massive tidal wave." I thought tidal waves occured in water. Meh, what do I know? ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ Give a man a face, and he will say what you want to hear. Give him a mask, and he will say what he wants 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Not just one guy, Googling "nibiru" links to a lot of people stating "We are all gunna die in 2012!", save for one page stating the facts that "nirbiru" is a myth, and does not exist. Javasca₧ why me? 21:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can Such Things (Vampires) Be Real?[edit]

[2] No further commentary necessary, really.--Mustex 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this?[edit]

[3] It's not the biggest, but it's different from what we normally have, and the evil-beatles trope is always good for a laugh. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly weird and seems to hit most of the bases.--BobBring back the hat! 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent pick. They even blaspheme the Goat! Also, minor tidbit - "Never a more beautiful song was recorded than TIL THERE WAS YOU by The Beatles." Granted, it's pretty and all, an early fave of theirs - but it's a cover, for crying out loud! Delightful grammage, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I like it. Aceof Spades 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this be queued?[edit]

From our WIGO:Clogs, [2nd Coming of Jesus etched in night sky? (aka epic fail in Astronomy and Astrology)] [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:Proposed_Article_of_the_Weak&oldid=651682"