RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?

From RationalWiki

Article of the Weak  • Previous AotWs • Talk AotW
WIGO CP • WIGO Clogs • WIGO Blogs • WIGO World
Talk CP • Talk Clogs • Talk Blogs • Talk World

Should we make it "newest additions at the top", or list them in strict descending order of posting date? ħuman 16:27, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Contents 1 "Pixar employees"? 2 Facebook "We can find 1,000,000..." WIGO 3 Just added a WIGO... 4 "Blacks didn't fight" WIGO 5 Education WIGO 6 RD.net forums 7 ScienceBlogs 8 Daily Fail and retractions

[edit] "Pixar employees"?

The WIGO about asking pixar to make a movie with strong female leads says: "The responses from Pixar employees range from "a Chick Flick...?" to "P.C. B.S.""

Pixar employees? As far as I'm aware, the source is just a blog about animation in general, not from pixar itself. The "a chick flick?" comment is, I assume, from the title of the blog post, which isn't written by anyone associated with pixar (according to his bio), and the "P.C B.S" comment comes from a user named "Hulk" who has no link to a page or gives any information about himself (in fact Hulk himself says "I’m sure when an interesting story with a female protagonist develops organically at Pixar, they will make that movie." in a later post, implying he's not an employee of pixar himself).

The wording of this wigo seems at best disingenous and at worst deliberately misleading, unless I am missing a great deal of backstory about the blog in general (maybe they are all just pixar employees, I dunno).

Also please forgive any mistakes I've done. I have absolutely no idea how to use mediawiki software. I can read it, though. Which is why I'm here. I also don't have an account and don't know how to sign comments. I am extremely useless. ^{— Unsigned, by: 193.60.68.130 / talk / contribs}

[edit] Facebook "We can find 1,000,000..." WIGO

If you're especially bored, open the Evolution page in one tab and the anti-evo one in another and click refresh on each every 60 seconds or so to see the fan counters go up. (Or NOT go up, as is the case with the anti-evo page.) (25 JAN 10 10:35 EST DO: 55,387 - DO NOT: 13,191) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever... The only reason people aren't flocking to the anti-evo page is because they don't want to get blackballed by academic elites hellbent on covering up the controversy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What a pointless exercise - since when was truth a popularity contest. Bob Soles (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since 33AD? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not really that pointless. Creationists like to go on about how they have so much public support, that the majority are in their favour, this just proves the to be very, very wrong. Let's face it, reality is very much winning this one. ArmondikoV^{...I'll deceive your potato!} 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As the one who posted that particular WIGO, I put in the same category as the Oregon Petition vs the Steve's Petition. --Ravenhull (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting 404s for both links. Crundy^{Oh maaan, I'm so high maaan!} 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nvm, my DNS server was playing up. Crundy^{Crucifact or crucifixion?} 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just had a chuckle... went to see what the counts were up to (70k vs 16k if you are interested), and glanced at the ads on the left. I wonder how many of the anti-crowd appreciated an ad for D&DOnline on their page. - Ravenhull (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That made me laugh. In two days time, the Evo page picked up an additional number of fans almost exceeding the Anti-Evo page's total fan count. <sarcasm>THIS is going to end well for the creationists.</sarcasm> The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who care, PZ Myers pharyngulated the DO believe (BTW, the page creator agrees that it was a lack of judgement using the phrase "believe", but that it needed to run contrary to the anti-evo statement, or something) page, bumping the current tally to: DO - 111,000 and some change to DO NOT - 25,000 or so. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The forums on the pro-evo group are interesting, like this thread, and "John" made a very nice argument:

“

Max, it is patently obvious that in a world without religion the concept of Creationism and Intelligent Design would be absent (redundant and absurd). On the other hand, in that same world the concept of evolution would remain, equally supported by the data and unaffected by the absence of religion. Darwin's words no more affected evolution than Galileo's words affected gravity. They both preceded their respective "authors" and they both continue after them. Unchanged, unmoved.

”

Nice. Crundy^{Say No to Cake} 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Just added a WIGO...

And it had four up and six down votes before it even loaded again on my screen. Did I screw something up? Researcher (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You had a space in the ID. Time cubic Phantom Hoover! 17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, how embarrassing. Thank you for fixing it. Researcher (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Blacks didn't fight" WIGO

Nice line in the blog linked to:

So it was, so it is and so it always shall be. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Which former Congress-critter was it that said, "You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."? MDB (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"So it was, so it is and so it always shall be." World without end; amen.

I think this sort of thing is what the Bush people were talking about when they coined the term "reality-based community." ListenerX^TalkerX 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

@MDB: Daniel Patrick Moynihan (March 16, 1927 – March 26, 2003) was a four-term U.S. Senator, ambassador, administration official, and academic. (Attributed). ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all rather quantum really: It ain't real 'til I've see it, sort of thing. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only that -- it's all too common to rebut facts that don't agree with your pre-conceived notions by implying bias on the part of the source. "snopes.com is a lib-burr-ull web site." Or "but that's from Fox News!" Now, its perfectly reasonable to look into the biases of the source of the facts, especially if you're wondering what they're leaving out, but a source's own biases doesn't instantaneously invalidate them, it should merely cause you to look deeper.

@Toast: I thought it was from DPM, but I wasn't sure, and I was too damn lazy to look it up. MDB (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I dismiss out of hand any "scientific" studies that do not come from actual scientists, or from people who are scientists if there is evidence that they might have already predetermined the conclusion before embarking on the study. There is no other way to defend against kooks and quacks. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Education WIGO

I've always been a fan of education for its own sake (despite having frittered away my own). If we were merely to educate for jobs, there'd be only trade schools. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not support a purpose-free education, but I think a liberal education can help a person in a job, even if the credentials are not required: there are hidden benefits as well. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There can be no such thing as "purpose-free" education. The learning process, by itself, enriches. There is far, far more to education than preparing for the job market. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

All education has purpose. If only to expand the mind. Without education, whether directed towards employment or not, we are as the apes. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hell for me, just the experience of being at university (I went to uni in London but I lived in b'ham, so I moved to London for 3 years) was as important as the education I got. X Stickman (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Me too. ħuman 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] RD.net forums

I wonder how many recursive wgets are trained on them at the moment. Professor Moriarty 17:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceBlogs

I've started a listing of interesting(?) entries @ ScienceBlogs (where PZ hangs out) here. Please add any you find.   ^Contribs_Talk 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Remarkably good idea. ArmondikoV^{...I'll deceive your potato!} 14:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Fail and retractions

So the Daily Mail printing an article about "Facebook" when it wasn't even about Facebook and what they were describing wasn't even possible on Facebook - all in the name of scaremongering the public even more about threats that aren't actually that widespread. This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding lies in the British press. Of course, by law they're supposed to issue corrections but this isn't far enough. All they do is very quietly correct their online version and then issue a small, 2 point print correction in a later paper (usually buried halfway through, amongst the ads that no one reads). After reading through the comments in the dot.Rory piece, many people seem to be agreeing with a point that I've thought of for a few weeks now. Namely, tabloids should issue corrections of at least the same scale and prominence as their errors. If someone misprints a name, then fine, a quick footnote at the bottom of the next column is all that is needed. But massive headlines declaring things that are outright lies (and most of the time the papers are well aware that these are lies) should not be acceptable and one way to ensure this would be that papers should apologise and correct their information. If anything, they have a duty to their readers - their customers - to inform them of the truth. Occasionally, yes, genuine errors are made, but the genuine errors are small and harmless and are already corrected in an appropriate manner with appropriate prominence. As for "big" genuine errors - when was the last time you saw an honest mistake given extreme prominence? Next to the intentional misrepresentation, misquoting and often outright fiction that appears in headlines, genuine errors are practically non-existent. These "things" (you could hardly call them newspapers any more) should either be made properly accountable for what they say, or be forced to carry the disclaimers given to fiction books and moved to the appropriate fiction book section of the shop. ArmondikoV^{...I'll deceive your potato!} 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)