Talk:Bullying
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Wow. A cut and paste from [CP.--BobIt's cold! 21:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Bullying on RationalWiki[edit]
Article should address the incidence of bullying on this website, and what measures (if any) this website has taken to counteract it. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, that'd be essay space considering it is highly subjective. AceModerator 08:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- No and you are dumb.--
talk
08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why we should rule out the ability to address the topic objectively. Surely we can develop objective criteria, and seek to apply them impartially to this website? Even if we can't agree on the conclusion, at least the article could discuss the positions in the controversy. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Na. Sounds lame. AceModerator 08:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- (EC)Site politics on RW don't begin to register as notable for a reader in any way. Project space perhaps, essay space most likely. Not main. Blue (pester) 08:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I am going to read a website, I want to know about how the website operates, what it's culture is, etc. That is important in determining its credibility. A lot of arguments about how reliable Wikipedia is as an information source end up with looking at the behaviours and biases of its users, admins, and ArbCom; the same applies equally to this site also. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I am going to read a website, I want to know about how the website operates, what it's culture is, etc No one has forced you to read RW. If you don't like it don't read it.
- the same applies equally to this site also. No, it doesn't. AceModerator 08:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- No one forces anyone to read any website. It doesn't change the fact, that investigating its culture and manner of operating is an important aspect of determining its credibility (or lack thereof). That is true of Wikipedia, that is true of Conservapedia, and that is true of RationalWiki — indeed, it is true of every site on the Internet. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good luck with that. But more RWW than here.AceModerator 08:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- What's with this fear of meta-analysis? For a website started with the predominant purpose of analysing another website (Conservapedia), even though its purpose has grown broader since then, why does it see self-analysis as outside of its scope? "The unexamined life is not worth living", as Socrates said. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Mara, which websites put their internal politics and doings in "reader"space? Wikipedia? Ebay? Youtube? Nobody does that, except a few news sites might report a new CEO perhaps. The stuff you want is in RWspace, not mainspace. Now stop griefing and grizzling and go and be the new Steve Jobs. Sophiebecause liberals 08:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia does put those things in mainspace. See its article on itself
, Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, Notability in the English Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, Vandalism on Wikipedia, Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia, Arbitration Committee (English Wikipedia), Censorship of Wikipedia, Essjay controversy, Wikipedia biography controversy. So Wikipedia actually devotes quite a lot of mainspace (not PROJECT space) to self analysis. Why shouldn't RW do the same? Is it afraid of self-analysis? Afraid of what it might see were it to look in the mirror? (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- WE ALREADY FUCKING DO YOU MORON. There's the chicken coop. There's All Things in Moderation. You can read them any time you want. WP's articles are there because they made the news in some way. Now shut up you dribbling imbecile. Sophiebecause liberals 08:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia does put those things in mainspace. See its article on itself
- Good luck with that. But more RWW than here.AceModerator 08:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- No one forces anyone to read any website. It doesn't change the fact, that investigating its culture and manner of operating is an important aspect of determining its credibility (or lack thereof). That is true of Wikipedia, that is true of Conservapedia, and that is true of RationalWiki — indeed, it is true of every site on the Internet. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I am going to read a website, I want to know about how the website operates, what it's culture is, etc No one has forced you to read RW. If you don't like it don't read it.
- If I am going to read a website, I want to know about how the website operates, what it's culture is, etc. That is important in determining its credibility. A lot of arguments about how reliable Wikipedia is as an information source end up with looking at the behaviours and biases of its users, admins, and ArbCom; the same applies equally to this site also. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why we should rule out the ability to address the topic objectively. Surely we can develop objective criteria, and seek to apply them impartially to this website? Even if we can't agree on the conclusion, at least the article could discuss the positions in the controversy. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with his idea. Seems fine to me. — Unsigned, by: 101.165.71.7 / talk / contribs
- The issue is mostly that we are generally so fractious a community that writing an article on us would be nigh impossible. Blue (is useful) 10:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's do what we can to legally put an end to bullying and harassment.[edit]
I don't want to see bullying on RationalWiki. I also want Kiwifarms and other similar websites to be shut down and for cyberbullying and cyberharassment to not be allowed on the Internet. — Unsigned, by: 2601:98a:400:8910:28:76a0:a5f6:59d0 / talk