Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Talk:Main Page

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 19:16, 7 May 2008 by Stabby the Misanthrope (talk | contribs) (A response to RA's idea)

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

General question about the site? See RationalWiki:Serious Business. Or post here anyways. See if I care.


Google adsense has been added to the site, if google decides to display an add it will appear under the donation button on the left of the screen. I tried to arrange things so that it is relatively painless for all of us. This is a test run, provide me feedback on what you think, problems with it, etc. I will evaluate how feasible it is as a mechanism for being able to pay for the site and we will go from there. tmtoulouse beleaguer 14:20, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Uh, Trent, you do realize that a site needs actual traffic for ads to pan out? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Remember everyone - click away at those ads when you see them! We're getting some good ID hits - I just saw this one advertised. As I expected, this is going to be great - we get more material to defeat with our Mad Skillz, and the ID'ers have to pay us for our clicks! What could be better! DogP 15:12, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) And why did you link me to that orgasm of creationist propaganda? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:28, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm seeing them at the bottom left of the page.--Bayesyikes 15:26, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Yep, scroll all the way to the bottom, and ads relevant to the page you're on appear. So dig into our pages, find some nutty vendors, and make them pay us! What fun! DogP 15:33, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
It's perfect for you RA - since you can't keep yourself away from RW, just click the Random Page button, and since we have so much anti-wackjob pages, you'll end up at some page with a few ads by wackjobs. Click on that, get some money off them, then return to another Random Page! Repeat until bored, you've just helped RW's pocketbook! DogP 15:37, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Advertising for evil


Great. We're advertising for the wrong side. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely - who's money would you prefer we take? It's great research for us too. DogP 15:52, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

What I really need is the color code for the background over there where the add is appearing. Its not pure white and the grey I have now is not it either, anyone have any clue? tmtoulouse beleaguer 16:43, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Digital Color Meter on my mac says its grey 249. #F9F9F9 Apparently, today there is no black or white. Only shades of grey. At least here it is easy to tell the truth from the lies and the foolish from the wise. Well, most cases. Bonus points if you can sing the song. --Shagie 16:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
We fade to grey....DogP 17:11, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Human, can you change your user name? When you sign on a talk page I keep seeing ads for "Human resourcing". Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 06:49, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Hehe, that's hilarious! Your sig brings up ads for "Jolly World Domination Through Fishing"... humanUser talk:Human 13:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
I have now started getting Human Resource type magazines in the mail. Boy, those people work fast! humanUser talk:Human 21:38, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Adsense placement

Some of the AdSense ads are now appearing at the top of the articles, which I definitely don't like - can that be controlled? I don't mind them in the sidebar. DogP 17:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hold tight I am working on some things. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
So here is what I am playing with, that banner add will not appear for anyone thats logged into the wiki, but anonymous users have roughly a 20 percent chance of having one pop up on an article. It will never appear on the main page or any of the wiki special pages. I am experimenting at the moment and seeing what works/doesn't work. I will also be implementing and "ad free" version that registered users can opt into if they really don't want to see the ads. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:17, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, that seems clever, and gives encouragement to create an account. DogP 18:21, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Good work Trent. Personally, I didn't mind the ads down the bottom left, the top is definitely intrusive. I keep clicking them as I know they help the site - or should I keep quiet about that? Myabe only pi-pledgers get the ad-free version? Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 18:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I really dislike the banner ads. The ads at the sides are fine but a block full of ads screaming creationism at the head of all our articles is very destructive to our credibility.
P.S. Genghis, saying stuff like that could get Trent's adsense revoked. - Icewedge 18:35, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I know, I am sympathetic about the banner ads, but I want to run some tests, there are several reasons that make those banners worth a LOT more than the side ads. I just want to see what it is like. 19:46, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Do we really need all that many adds to pay for our hosting costs? We get along the lines of 12K hits/day(RationalWiki:Statistics/Mar2008) which, assuming a CTR of 0.5%, is 60 clicks/day and with a ppc program giving out $0.05 - $0.40 on each click we will have more than enough to cover our costs (which I believe you said was around 50$/month) and have a surplus. - Icewedge 20:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
That strikes me as a rather pessimistic view of humanity—surely the number of fools who actually click on such ads is much lower?  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Some sites have reported CTR of greater than 50%; these had banner ads though so I think 1 out of 200 is a reasonable assumption for RW. - Icewedge 21:13, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Costs are greater than $50, and while I am not allowed to quote statistics per TOC we are not quiet where we need to be but it seems promising. It is way to soon to analyze it, but thats why I am experimenting with different things just to see what works/dosen't work, etc. Tell me what you don't like, offer up suggestions and at the end of a couple weeks I will look at the data and make a decision. I will be experimenting with different types of ads and ad placement and we will just see. 22:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Why ...

... when free hosting has been offered is this necessary? Shakinghead.gifSusanTalk(if you must) 17:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

First comment, nice page space whore of a sig you have there, Susan!!! humanUser talk:Human 01:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
The person who offered free hosting has since left the site, which highlights one of several reasons I didn't want to make such a move. It puts the existence of this site out of my control. I have pledged to keep this site up and running for as long as possible and have bent over backwards and made many sacrifices to ensure there is little to no interruption.....turning the site over to someone else like that endangers things too much, and as is evidenced by the case in point no matter how "in our camp" someone might be you never know how the fates will turn. tmtoulouse beleaguer 17:24, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Yep, I support that TMT. And I'm really enjoying taking money off them and doing some batshit research while I'm at it. DogP 17:29, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
I must admit that when I saw the first creationist/ID ads I was taken aback. But now I realise that clicking on on of their adds costs them money and raises funds for RW then I'm quite satisfied. How much do we get for each click-through? However, as a pi-pledger I would like to know just what is the state of our finances (although maybe somwehere a bit more private). Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 17:53, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
That's a fair point - me too. Trent would answer but he's driving his Ferrari down to the country house for a yacht trip. DogP 18:05, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Basically the site currently costs (with some plus or minus depending on various factors) $80 a month, as things stand I get about $20 a month average from donations, and have received several larger one time donations on the order of magnitude of $10-$40. So if RationalWiki is an entity outside of me (which it isn't as of this time) it would owe me several hundred dollars. I swear I am not making a dime of this endeavor :). If something were to happen such that the site were to earn more income then it costs to run in a month I would just move the money into savings for leaner months. If we were to consistently make more money per month then it costs to run we could consider scaling back or investing in advertising the site or whatever. But as it stands it is not paying for itself yet which is what I am trying to do. If that doesn't answer questions or anyone wants more info go ahead and post or I can always be contacted in private over any matter at all. I may not be as active on the site during the semester but I am always checking mail. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:07, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
If it hasn't already been said Trent, thanks for starting this, keeping it going out of your own pocket, providing us with such an entertaining forum and putting up with all the shit. Now, how do you intend to recompense me for the number of hours I have lost to this damn project? Eh?! DogP 18:15, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Saaaaaay, Trent... how much do we get per click? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:38, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks Dogged, recompense comes from that warm and fuzzy feeling you get knowing that schlafly curses us every night. RA, I am not allowed to say actually, turns out google is very particular about this point and made me "sign" and express agreement not to reveal that information. It is way early yet to tell but I am going to try this out for a little while and get an assesment of it and give some general feedback in a few weeks. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Trent, I never meant to imply that you were benefiting financially from RW. I just wanted to know what sort of sums we need cough up to keep the site afloat. From your $20 a month quote I guess that makes six of us actively contributing. Come on you guys, thats less than a Starbucks coffee a month and is non-fattening. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 18:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I didn't even notice the ads, until I came to the mainpage edits and read this. Personally, I think that the crazier the ads, the better! I'll add more later... humanUser talk:Human 01:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Ads give a good set of targets to debunk. Which in turn adds more content for us, which in turn adds more for the people looking for it finds us. --Shagie 01:59, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
I must say that I don't like these advertisements. How are they selected? Or is this covered by the confidentiality agreement?--Bobbing up 16:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
No, one doesn't have control over placement - AdSense ads are placed by the GoogleBorg on pages that the GoogleBorg deems relevant. Basically, it treats the entire contents of whatever page you're on as input to the Google search engine, than puts ads there that it thinks are relevant. In our case, since we have so much talk about conservatives, evangelicals, and nutjob YEC beliefs, it puts those kind of ads here. There's a positive side to it Bob, and in fairness to Trent, I think if one is not already a Pi Pledger, there's no entitlement to have an opinion. Someone has to pay for it, after all. DogP 16:46, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, I am a Pi Pledger and I don't like them. :-) --Bobbing up 04:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Good-looking turds are still turds

(Found thanks to Adsense!) I somehow doubt the U.S. navy advocated chelation therapy for its sailors. Also, the picture of that "doctor", Mr. Cutler—my, what perfect teeth you have. And how tall you are. And white... --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:24, 3 May 2008 (EDT)


"But who cares when Republicans say offensive things? It's expected of them. " Thanks (ames? gulik?) I LOLed. SHahB 22:12, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Not me, Bohdan. Sadly, it _is_ true. Look at all the crapola Conservatives get away with because all the True Believers discard it as Liberal Slander, and everyone else just has Nixon flashbacks. --Gulik 15:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)


Quote: "No more anchor babies. Thanks to extra-constitutional court decisions, babies born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents immediately become U.S. citizens. This was never the intent of the authors of the Constitution." ( What is the constitutional position on immigration, if any? I'd have thought that it (the constitution) predated any concerns. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:12, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...
—Amendment XIV, Constitution of the United States[1] [italics mine—Ed.]
Oh, dear. Unfortunately for the members of the only church acceptable among conservatives, Church of the Holy and Divinely Infallible Founding Fathers, what the Constitution actually says trumps what its writer's "intended". --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:13, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Hah, Conservapedia doesn't need "facts" or "history." Schlafly simply knows these things with 95% certainty. ThunderkatzHo! 15:16, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
So: in addition to "Cafeteria Christians" we've got "Cafeteria Constitutionalists"! SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:19, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
You couldn't tell that already from their support of torture, warrantless wiretapping, and state-endorsed religion? ThunderkatzHo! 15:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
"Original intent" is a creepy methodology used mostly by archconservatives when it's convenient for them. They never raise a fuss over what the 2nd amendment must have meant by "arms"... humanUser talk:Human 15:26, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Yup! that's what I thought. SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:29, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
The founders "originally intended" for slavery to be legal... Sterilexx 18:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, yeah, but that original intention was amended eventually. In theory, at least. humanUser talk:Human 18:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)


My browser doesn't appear to be loading pages here correctly anymore. Is anyone else having trouble? --Horace 20:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... Seems Ok now. False alarm. --Horace 20:38, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I had a problem too just a while ago, I think it may be Trent editing the adsense. - Icewedge 21:19, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) Think I'm getting this problem too, or something similar. The navigation bar either disappears or appears where the page itself should be. 21:21, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, the "top banners" have yielded some weird stuff. Although none trashed the page loading for me, who knows what that crazy grad student is up to? humanUser talk:Human 21:32, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
All right screw it I will nix the banners...........but it was really fun coming up with all the crazy php code for it. 22:30, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Jesus Made Me Puke

This retreat reminds me of some place on the web...--TimS 12:29, 6 May 2008 (EDT)


I like ham, especially honey ham, Virginia ham, and chipped ham. i like ham sandwiches, ham salad, ham and eggs, and deviled ham. I sometimes like to ham it up, but I am ham handed. I know some ham radio buffs. Wasn't there some guy in the bible named ham too? Even jeebus must like ham. There is that dish at IHOP I believe called moons over my ham me. They know. They know. Ham rules. Does anyone else have any ham memories or a special fondness for ham that they might like to share?

On another topic I think banner ads about how to do banner ads are pretty funny. But not as good as ham! Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 17:56, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Ham smells like pig shit. Fox 18:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Ham does have a distinct smokey-savory aroma but . . . it does originate from the nether regions of the swine. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 18:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
I second Fox on the nasty smell bit. I'd also like to say that this is a very unhealthy obsession you have. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:59, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Fox, have you ever really smelled the south end of a north-facing pig? And then compared it to some well-smoked bacon, or some lovely Black Forestish ham? I think not. Your religious prejudices against tasty pork "products" are showing! You know, it is the "other white meat" - no alternativeffirmative action required! humanUser talk:Human 21:45, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Nay, nay and thrice nay! Pig meat really does have a tang of pig pooh about it. As for knowing the smell - yes, I know it alright: that's a question only a townie would ask :D I once lived in an extremely rural area (by English standards, ie in a farmhouse at the bottom of a dirt track accessible by a narrow lane running through the marshes, an hour's drive from Tesco) and trust me, there were plenty of pigs on the surrounding farms. Mind you, a far worse smell was when the local baron decided to try out "nitrogen cakes" for fertilizer... Which is a posh way of saying dried, compressed human sewage sludge. That was one helluva summer, believe me. Fox 03:25, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Interesting how one's Bible-based prejudices can color one's experience of reality. Rational Edperception 08:13, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Not the case at all - I don't particularly like the taste or smell of beef, either, and last time I checked I was not a Hindu. Fox 08:17, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
So just all-around olfactorily challenged. My condolences. Rational Edperception 08:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps the opposite - with such a highly developed olfactory sense I am able to detect the pungent odour of dead things and their previous dietary habits a little more clearly than most others :P Fox 08:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Fox, that's an unhealthy obsession, and you should seek professional help. Gives the phrase "Sixth Sense" a new and rather disgusting meaning ("I smell dead pigs"). Rational Edperception 08:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I like having a Krusty the Clown sandwich. That's ham, pork, and bacon on rye. --Edgerunner76Tah-daaaaaaah! 14:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)


Informative article on GMT at Conservapedia: "Greenwich Mean Time, or GMT is the mean time that the earth takes to rotate from noon-to-noon." — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Idea for the future of RationalWiki

I don't believe that the future of RationalWiki is According to. I believe it's future is WIGO. Not WIGO as we know it today, but a WIGO that moves beyond Conservapedia.

"According to" has limited appeal to the community here because the items it discusses are not "Web 2.0". That is, they are not interactive. The appeal of the CP-specific WIGO lies in that the experience is (a) interactive and (b) it involves clashes of personality. "According to" passively reports on news concerning nutjobs. Furthermore, the sites they link to are static, and lack the joy of watching nutjobs interact with each other, as on WIGO.

Now, the loony sort of conservatives we find on CP aren't exactly common on the 'net—liberals are far more dominant. New Age communities, as well with crackpot-heavy communities in general, however, are plentiful. We would ideally comment on whatever New-Agey/crackpot wikis, forums, and blogs we can find, as well as whatever ultra-right-wing communities blogs, wikis, and forums we can hunt down, and establish a WIGO for them. We would get all the trappings of the CP-specific WIGO we have now—we would get to watch the internal workings of such communities (in particular, enjoying the clashes of personality), get to jump in and participate in the other communities if we lose patience with being a mere bystander, and, ideally, we would get to watch their reactions to us and our WIGO. And don't forget, we get to be snarky in our entries.

Granted, there would be some caveats. We wouldn't be able to attain the same level of familiarity with many disparate sites that we would with just one (Conservapedia), so to avoid confusion, we would have to state the site we are commenting on, as well as link to relevant profiles of the personalities involved. This would make entries longer (though hopefully no less witty). If the we choose to cover forums and blogs as well, it would be more difficult to track changes in the text; one would need to take a lot of screenshots to do so. Also, other communities may not be as tolerant of us as Conservapedia is.

There is a second goal within this plan. A number of people here have expressed that they dream of RationalWiki becoming a dependable resource for debunking the anti-science movements, crackpots, and various other movements and personalities. Realistically, it is highly unlikely that will ever come to pass. We're just too small, and there are already many other, more-established sites that do this. This also overlooks our greatest strength: our community.

In the process of commenting on so the internet communities described above, we will inevitably come across people who have waded into the alien morass on their own, and are attempting to inject some sense into them. We should do exactly what we do with such people on Conservapedia, and set ourselves up as a "recovery station" for these adventurers (with the goal of retaining them for the long term). We should quietly invite them to our site, via email if possible, or via a post on the wiki/forum/blog if necessary. Most may not accept, but if even a handful did accept it would greatly expand our membership. Even invitations that are turned down would serve to build "brand awareness", by getting our name out there and increasing the likelihood of new people finding us. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

section break 1

So, what do you think? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

An interesting proposal worthy of consideration. But do you imagine one big WIGO; various WIGO's; subdivisions of one big one or what? To be honest each possibility is less than perfect - but I like the idea of going somewhere else. --Bobbing up 12:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Good proposal, but as you say - at present we don't have the familiarity with other sites. Maybe we should target them one at a time and create a new WIGO for each as we go on? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Although one user wanted to do that for Metapedia but that was stepped on. though perhaps metapedia is a special case.--Bobbing up 12:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I didn't think it through that far, whether we would build one mega-WIGO or several WIGOs. My initial thought was that maintaining several WIGOs would be too much effort to maintain. But I see your point. It may be best to do a test run, and let the community pick a single nutjob online community (hopefully trying not to be too ambitious when making our choice), and build a new WIGO specifically for that. I never envisioned my post as a road plan, and I imagined people would hammer would things out as it went along, just like we've always done. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Just be careful of the increasing our membership thing. If that's your goal, then fine. But remember what the most common corollaries are, namely increased admin, increased costs (bandwidth, etc.), loss of "tight-knittedness", and, maybe most importantly, the potential breeding of your own nutjobs. The latter is the scourge of any large internet community.
I'm not saying what you propose above is a good idea in general but specifically any drive to increase one's membership should be considered carefully. Sometimes small really is beautiful. Ajkgordon 12:49, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
If we don't want to attract more people why do we write articles?--Bobbing up 12:53, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Ajkgordon— Well, my notion was that so much of our membership is Conservapedia-centric, and if we don't boost our post-CP membership, then this site will die (or at least be severely crippled) when Conservapedia dies (as it inevitably will). --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Does that mean you think I'm beautiful, Ajk (5ft 1½ins? Seriously though, you're right Ajk You don't need a hierarchy when you're as small as we are. Bob - to disseminate our views? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
If we wish to disseminate our views we must hope people come to read them. If people come to read them they may well stay and edit. Creating any type of content is an implicit invitation to join us.--Bobbing up 13:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Yup! SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:05, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, I wasn't arguing against it. Just highlighting the possible effects. S'all. Ajkgordon 13:09, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Well, as my grandpa expressed it, "We'll get there when we get there." We'll deal with that issue when it comes up. No use worrying about it when, if go about things right, it may not even happen. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
The identity crisis RW suffers seems to be due to the dificulty of deciding if we do this for our own amusement and the random edification of those who might come across the site, or whether we are a serious attempt to wage a battle to the death against irrationality on the internets. Rational Edperception 13:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Quality not quality. If quantity is one way to increase quality, then fine. If it just creates more admin and crap (i.e. spending more time bickering amongst the membership rather than doing the job,) then it's a waste of time. Dunno which one, just that it should be considered. Perhaps a set of WIGOs for an agreed set of sites rather than a free-for-all. Or pick a couple to find out if it works as you intend. Ajkgordon 13:14, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
There's also the fact that it's FUN taking the piss out of those fascist godbotherers on CP because we know them so well! SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, don't want to be playing the DA too much but.... this is similar to a conversation we were having yesterday about the BNP (far-right British party). Too little coverage and they can ferment in their cess pool. Too much and they are engaged in dialogue with all that can bring. Has RW got the balance about right now? Just a thought. Ajkgordon 13:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Alright, hold on just one moment. I can already see were this is going. We're starting to descend into "what ifs". We'll start nitpicking and debating hypotheticals, and at the end of the day, what could have been a good idea has been derailed. Just once, can we FUCKING TRY IT before shoving our head up our asses with our hypotheticals, our nitpicking—our "what if"s!?

Give the idea a test run, and we can work problems out as they come along. Which, in case you haven't noticed, is how we've always accomplished things here in the first place. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

What's the first step in your scheme then, Radman? A satellite of WIGO dedicated to New World Encyclopedia? 13:43, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Bollocks. It's not nitpicking. It's just thinking things through. There's nothing wrong with considering possible effects - at least you understand the potential pit-falls. If you don't want to spend five minutes doing that then fine. But there's little worse than thinking "Shit, I should have thought of that".
And, "in case you hadn't noticed", we already suggested a test run. Perhaps you should locate your head first, hmmmmm? Ajkgordon 13:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Ooooh, aren't we testy today? Interesting how hard it is for some to stay in discussion mode. Rational Edperception 14:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
He started it! Ajkgordon 14:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Some thoughts: It sounds like an uber-blog, which is not necessarily a bad thing... I'm not sure that becoming the annoying gnats of the internet, an entirely reactive entitity, is the best model. (I'm not sure that we enamor a lot of new readers by the obsessive our anti-CP-ing, either. People then have to care then about ConPedia and us...) And as TMT says below, some of us do like the anti-pseudoscience stuff...) Pardon the rambling. Sterilexx 14:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Rather than annoying gnats we could be the Justice League of Teh Internets, shining the awesome light of reality into every dark corner of irrationality. Rational Edperception 14:27, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Fuck yeah! Team RW! Ajkgordon 14:43, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Community aspects vs resource

As a site we of course have many "personalities" two of the broader categories are those aspects of the site that focus on community, and those aspects of the site that are based around creating some kind of resource. I think they are both very important I like the idea of expanding our "community" based interactions. However, do not underestimate the power of some of the resources we have built up. While the majority of our articles designed to debunk, or serve as some sort of resource don't achieve great heights we have had some significant success.

Some examples includes:

These articles have at various times received significant traffic (on the order of 10,000s of users) and sparked off site discussion and interactions about their content. Various forums link to the pages and have debates about the content that never reaches here. Basically I just wanted to state that we should never underestimate the potential for the impact of publishing real articles on here can have. We have sparked debate in a few corners of the web, introduced some content, and come to be the "goto" site for certain kinds of articles (something like the poe's law is now linked across the blogosphere to our article), not to mention more than a few of our articles are pissing off the right people. tmtoulouse beleaguer 13:30, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. I hadn't considered that. I suppose I did underestimate their value/potential. I do think my idea is perfectly compatible with your vision. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I hate to be picky, but the wager is merely a quote from someplace else. Interesting, but hardly a demonstration of the value of RW's own articles. Rational Edperception 13:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I agree it compatible, not saying otherwise. I would agree PoorEd to an extent, but would say that our production of it (as with poe's law) served as a flash point for discussion. The links/readers were to us, and our existence and publishing of it served to produce discussion/debate. So while its not original content choosing to publish it on our site did do something atleast. tmtoulouse beleaguer 13:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Good point. Rational Edperception 14:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

A response to RA's idea

RA, the first step to making what you propose a reality is to do something (note that you are also engaging in "what ifs"). Create a "WIGO"-type article about some other nutter place that is active enough to support it and also has a vacuum in terms of clear criticism (IE, not AIG...), and see what happens. "If you build it, they will come" - and if they do, it will increase in value. If it hits the level of interest that WIGO CP has, IE, virtually daily updates, it would be worth begging Trent to implement the backend for a voting system to add to interactivity.

One reason WIGO CP is so strong is that CP is the perfect storm - plenty of nutwhackery on a daily basis, very active in general, enough notability to be a magnet for "new" people both there and eventually here (even non-joining lurkers), and some "wonderful" personalities to dissect and report on.

If a new WIGO/somewhere takes off, then it would be deserving of its own namespace for related articles. humanUser talk:Human 14:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded. Ajkgordon 14:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, before RA blows a gasket over "what ifs" - I hereby suggest that he finds an appropriate website to WIGO.--Bobbing up 14:21, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, go fer it, dude. Rational Edperception 14:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Agree with above Fox 14:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Also agree. Seeing as I am the one proposing a new WIGO, it falls to me to suggest specific sites.
By the way, any pointers would be appreciated. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Grand Theft Auto IV

Has anyone else played it? As with all of the prior GTA games since III, IV has a very anti-conservative/right-wing tone. The in-game conservative radio talk station, WKTT, has the Richard Bastion show. It is really well done. It's hard not to accidentally think your listening to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Obviously, the Bastion character says thing that would never be said in real life, but it's hard to tell. It feels like Hannity or Rush being cursed to only say things as they really mean without euphemisms.

The Bastion character also touches on anti-science. One of his comments is how he doesn't trust any science except for the science that "let's us turn a million ungrateful foreigners into glass."

The radio and TV news service in GTA4 is called WEASEL NEWS (a play on Fox News). One of Weasel's central themes is to connect everything to potential terrorism. --Edgerunner76Tah-daaaaaaah! 14:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

It's them eevul ghey atheists in Scotland wot dunnit. Ajkgordon 14:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)