Talk:Wikipedia/Archive1

Do we have actual evidence Andy had any WP editing experience prior to starting CP? The only edits (Andysch and Aschlafly) I've found that I can attribute to him post-date Conservapedia's start. Roger is there and has been somewhat more active. ^{— Unsigned, by: jtl / talk / contribs} 15:14, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, I'm not sure about that honestly. We can always substitute Roger, what the heck? --Kels 15:16, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, but I still want to know the answer to my question =). Andy's claimed (or at least implied) being more active on WP than those edits suggest: [1] [2]. I think there were more, but that's all I can find offhand (although looking at Aschlafly edits containing 'wikipedia' and 'removed' is fascinating, lemme tell you). --jtl^talk 15:43, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Personally, I'd love to have some more info on that, then we can add it, either here or on his very trustworthy and excellent entry. But at this point, I'm on firmer ground just mentioning Roger. --Kels 15:47, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Do they really thinkthey can compete with WP?--PalMD^{-yada yada} 16:31, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, yes they do. Remember, the site is growing rapidly. --jtl^talk 16:53, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Maybe the need another Article Creation Drive. I think I have a dictionary I can loan the kids.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 16:59, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Jimmy Wales, "pornographer"

Our new resident vandal keeps wanting to insert an accusation that JW is "a pornographer". From what I understand, he made his monies by providing www hosting, and some, many or all of his clients were distributing porn. So the link is tenuous, and irrelevant to our purposes anyway. So we keep removing it. He also created the vandalism section, which is not very useful, either, and could be removed or rewritten, IMO. human^{be in} 14:11, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Human is a troll. He keeps trolling this page. ^{— Unsigned, by: Jeb2 / talk / contribs}

Duh. We knew that! --Kels 13:28, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

who wrote this?

because it's funny as hell!! thankies... human^{be in} 02:17, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree that this article is pretty funny, but I fail to see how "liberal/atheist" bashing advances any of the 4 stated purposes. Could someone explain? Is the bit about BCE supposed to be satire? - Frankie (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's satire. Ty^talk 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, the bit about BCE was cited non-satirically as one reason for the foundation of Conservapedia (including the bit about "denying the historical achievements of Christianity"). RW initially arose as a site to make fun of stupid things on Conservapedia, and the joke here is a relic from this more CP-centric era in RW's past, before the introduction of the current mission statement. --Benod (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

RW stance

What's RW official stance on Wikipedia? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? --JayJay4Ever^??? 22:15, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Well there really isn't an "official" anything, so I would say it varies by user. Personally I really like WP and I use it and edit it frequently. RW is not WP but rather a companion wiki perhaps.... tmtoulouse ^torment 22:21, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Unlike CP, there is no official policy as far as I can tell, though general consensus seems to slant positive. They are certainly not the enemy. I'm a WP admin and something of a WP skeptic on some issues, and am fully aware of WP's flaws (only a few of the ones CP makes such a big deal out of are legitimate, but there are some). They're a good source in general, I find, but of course they are susceptible to vandalism and misinformation, and should not be relied on completely. I have issues with various elements of the project, but nothing like whatever crawled up Andy's ass. DickTurpis 22:25, 22 November 2007 (EST)

We know/suspect why Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia, and obviously we're not taking sides with CP. But given some pretty dark stuff (not mere flaws) that's out there about Wikipedia, I just felt compelled to ask. --JayJay4Ever^??? 22:39, 22 November 2007 (EST)

To what dark stuff do you refer? DickTurpis 22:44, 22 November 2007 (EST)

The Linda Mack/SlimVirgin stuff and her work to hide the truth about the Lockerbie bombing, for example. And Jimbo Wales protects her. --JayJay4Ever^??? 22:53, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I never got involved with the whole SlimVirgin/Brandt/Berlet/etc. debacle. But it does touch on one of my criticisms of Wikipedia, which is that it tries to bite off more than it can chew. I really can't be bothered to even read all the crap about it (I know that by looking at Rob's article on Wikipedia over at CP, you'd think that there was little more to WP than the actions of those three people). Because everyone wants seems to want to make a WP article the first and last word on everything, they get into too many details which leads to conflicts and conflict of interest, and this is particularly true of any article involving conspiracy theories. Ironically, this brings us into a realm where Andy and I are somewhat in agreement: Wikipedia could stand to be more concise. Now, I don't think it should be Conservapedia-concise, with 2 sentences on subjects that need a couple pages, but the devil is in the details, and Wikipedia gets caught up on details. The ballooning of articles is a significant problem. Right now I'm involved in a minor dispute over an article on a minor historical character which has turned into an overly wordy POV piece so littered with blockquotes that I'd swear Ken had a hand in its writing. Anyway, there's a lot of that. I might read the thing on Lockerbie later; but it seems like if they tried to have a more concise article on the subject, then all sorts of conflict could be averted. As for Jimbo defending SlimVirgin: from that one block and unblock, it seems that if someone wants to block an alleged sockpuppet, there would need to be some proof. Absent of that, Jimbo was probably right in unblocking. Again, I haven't really looked into it. DickTurpis 23:13, 22 November 2007 (EST)

As I said, I'm not siding with CP, but why are the WP sysops so touchy about this subject? They block anyone who makes the tiniest mention of Linda Mack. And did Pierre Salinger lie about this, when it's SlimVirgin who has been very, very suspicious and abusive all the time?

I'm not asking you directly, just that this stuff raises so many questions... --JayJay4Ever^??? 23:28, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Good questions, I guess. I wasn't aware that Linda Mack was the FBI of WP. I think there is (somewhat justifiably) an issue with revealing personal information on editors, but that sounds like closing the barn door after the horses have fled. As I said, I've stayed out of that crap (I'm not even listed on Brandt's hit list), so I guess it's just as well you're not asking me specifically. I think issues like that get blown out of proportion. Wikipedia is much bigger than Linda Mack. If I cared enough, I'd probably look into it, but I really don't. I do think it's kind of funny the fuss that Rob has made about it over at CP. He's quite the whiner, and a horrible writer to boot. DickTurpis 23:39, 22 November 2007 (EST)

I have never been involved in the politics over there. I like WP, but I find some articles frustratingly tangential, etc---nothing I wouldn't expect from a wiki. I use it to complement other sources, but I don't really edit much because, well, I spend too much time doing other things.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 02:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I understand, DickTurpis. Actually, I was informed from other sources, certainly not Rob's or CP's (for God's sake, I wouldn't give credit to them). Daniel Brandt's is one of the places where I read about Linda Mack, but also on WikiTruth, Slashdot and Wikipedia Review (for anybody who's interested). --JayJay4Ever^??? 08:39, 23 November 2007 (EST)

UBX I made on teh wikkypidea

See here. --_transResident Transformers fan^form! 21:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

That's nice, but couldn't it be prettier? One, it at least needs more "brainz'n'brackits". What's it called, by the way? I might go adorn my luser page... ħuman 21:40, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Needs more goat. (The Goat be praised.) --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:43, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

We need to ask Linus for explicit permission to use the RW logo on WP for the RW userbox only. Without clear copyright and permissions, the bots will kill it. ħuman 20:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I hereby give you explicit permission to use the RationalWiki logo for userboxes on Wikipedia. I'll formally dual-license it under a CC license and the GFDL later. --λινυσ^(☮) 21:09, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! Now I guess one of us has to grind through the WP copyright template process and upload it... anyone used to that bureaucratic hell? ħuman 21:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, taking Eira literally, a good wikicommons goat image ought to be just the ticket... ħuman 20:59, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

<- I goated it up a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AutoFire/rwubx - I figured "goat.jpg" was bound to exist. Sized it to stuff the height, played with colors a bit. Let me know what you all think! ħuman 21:07, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I hate goats. _{↳ <blink>↑</blink> ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 21:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

No you don't, you're just trying to be all "edgy and subversive". --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 04:17, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Musharaf

Anyone know why Pervez Musharaf has been on the front page right of wp for fucking ever?-- -PalMD ^{--4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain} 19:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it is still on the In the News section 4th most recent, so maybe there has been not enough news that meet Wikipedia's news criteria, an event that will effect the content of multiple articles. Also it maybe the only free image of any event in the news (fair use images are not permitted on the front page). $\approx$$\pi$ 19:25, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey all you geeks, it's Perseid time! ħuman 20:32, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Not dark yet on this end of EST.-- -PalMD ^{--4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain} 20:39, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I didn't mean this very second, sorry. Tomorrow just before dawn is supposed to be the peak, though. I'm hoping the clouds clear a bit. Man, a few years ago when they were particularly intense I remember being out watching (wait, it was cold, must have been another shower!), on my back on my picnic table - saw hundreds, if not thousands of them. Was on phone to someone 200 miles away, and we'd even see the same more dramatic ones (the bigger, brighter, even colored ones). Twas very fun. ħuman 20:49, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

WikiProject Biography

Has anyone else noticed the logo used by Wikiproject Biography looks like Hitler? NEED PERCOCET NOW 21:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crystal_personal.svg

wp:Portal:Border

wp:Portal:Border seems to have been either created or commandeered by CP-alikes. It appears to have narrowly survived a deletion nomination earlier in the year; do people here reckon it's worth trying to salvage? otherwise re-nominating might be a better plan. Pseudomonas 12:00, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I've re-nominated - feel free to have your say on the linked page. Pseudomonas 12:43, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Move?

Most pages like this are being moved to the Fun: namespace, can this follow suit? ^{— Unsigned, by: Ipatrol / talk / contribs}

Why, exactly? And please sign your comments. ħuman 22:26, 17 February 2009 (EST)

This is more of a satire, I propose that the contents be moved to the fun namespace and this become a page documenting how the site relates to us.--Ipatrol 22:38, 17 February 2009 (EST)

We like satire. Personally I think fun space is hurting our main space because if anyone sticks too many jokes in it people want it moved to fun space. - User $\pi$ 22:47, 17 February 2009 (EST)

You can add your thing "documenting how the site relates to us" to the article. No need to move it. ħuman 22:58, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Section name

Should it be "Bias or radial?" or "Bias or radical?" ? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Radial. It's an old-school car joke. ħuman 18:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, fucking explain it to him then! ^{(signed old-school old-scholar) This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See, there are two ways to wrap the reinforcing plies around the carcass of a tire (under the tread). "Bias" plies are wrapped at an angle to the circumference, with layers in opposite directions. "Radial" plies are actually circumferential wrapped from bead to bead, at ninety degrees to the circumference, and give a smoother ride (so you don't see many bias ply tires any more). So anyway, the section on "Bias" makes this lame joke on another meaning of the word "bias". ħuman 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

EC) Sorry about the expletive above, I'm a little tired (should that be tyred?) ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to a wazzock, my further comment was buggered. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate suppository of human knowledge

Anyone know how to get this joke into the article? It'd make a decent intro part if we want to rewrite -at least the start of- the article from a rational perspective rather than a conservapedia orientated persepective. ^bomination 11:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the combined blue-pill and red-pill thing from the matrix. Also is it Rectal suppository or vaginal/urethral suppository? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Copycats

I don't think the CP section is inappropriate there, I think RationalWiki is though. We are not an encyclopaedia. I would rather see Metapedia and ASK mentioned there as they try to be Wikipedia. - π 01:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is - it's the most "on mission" WP copycat (wiki encyclopedia) there is. However, mentioning MP (ugh) and Awk makes sense to me. I'm not sure I agree with the header name if it's going to mention RW, since we aren't, we just happen to be a wiki. ħuman 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the copycat section and then thought "why all this crap on an article about wikipedia" and put it here instead. ^bomination 08:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Snipped from page

Teenagers

It calls itself the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and yet if you are a teenager, especially the taboo teenage girl type, you will not be warmly welcomed at Wikipedia. If you edit from a school your edits are automatically vandalism. If you say you are a teen they will use it againist you at every turn. Brianna

^{[citation needed]} Word wisest Phantom! 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Possibly true, but the mainspace needs to cite stuff like this - otherwise it's just someone's persecution complex (and we all know where that leads). ^bomination 15:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has it's own template to single out schools editing at [3]. They also have a template called schoolblock at [4]. A lot of teens have been rejected for sysopping because of their age. "School vandalism" is the Wikipedia equivilent of Conservapedia's "liberal vandalism." Name yourself Jessica the Antivandalism Cheerleader and they block you. They are obviously against us. Brianna (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The template in the first link is part of a class of templates used to mark shared IPs used by multiple people. It only singles out kids editing from school in the same sense that it targets people editing from work, military bases, Internet cafes or mobile devices, which also have templates in that class. The second template, schoolblock, is virtually identical to anonblock. Both of these are soft blocks, meaning they only block anonymous editing from the targeted IP - If you have an account, it won't affect you. The only difference between anonblock and schoolblock is that the latter also allows an instructor to request that the block be lifted.

While your persecutory fantasies are mildly amusing, you are turning out to be quite a pest. If you want to be granted the same respect as an adult, you need to behave like an adult. The histrionics aren't helping. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are a jerk. Brianna (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, Brianna, that's a really mature comment and is sure to gain you admiration.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also you have not been an editor for as long as I have. First came the generic shared, then came school to single out schools. Others were made to legitimize school. Trust me my sister was a sysop in Wikipedia's early years back when Jimbo was more involved and Ed Poor hadn't fucked with it and Conservapedia did not exist. No one ever said I was nice. Brianna (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(ps, be happy I'm not screwing with the mainpage still) :-) Brianna (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The logo

Did they find the missinb bits of the jigsaw - or are they still down the back of the sofa/covered in sticky stuff etc? ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

w

I didn't get the joke. Mei (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"...and a liberal bias toward liberal porn"

So there's conservative porn? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nailin' Paylin, duh - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

dur, of course. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Liberal porn is better. They can haz lezbianz. SJ ^Debaser 21:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What about communist porn? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No such thing. Communist's only fornicate to do their duty to the Party. SJ ^Debaser 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that line was added by the same guy that said Wikipedia was becoming self-aware (that being me). So I don't recommend thinking about it too hard (well, the conservative porn part, anyway — you should be worried if Wikipedia is becoming self-aware) --GastonRabbit (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No more porn?

I don't have time to add this to the article, but: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content (see the talk, too) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/000008.html Fox News are claiming to have triggered this by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation's major sponsors. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/07/wikipedia-purges-porn/ --ZooGuard (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be an issue in the commons only, not the encyclopedia. Ironically enough, the images that Sanger started bitching about haven't been touched. tmtoulouse 21:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the Sanger complaint? Amusingly, "being used on one of the wikipedias" is a reason, or might be, to make an image acceptable. ħuman 00:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Back track from here is your best bet. It was the Martin Van Maele images he was screaming about. tmtoulouse 01:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Amusingly, we just dealt with this on RW with no fuss with the NSFW tagging of images... Why can't they just do that so schools, parents, etc. can set their kids' (or personal) limits? ħuman 01:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No fuss? -- Nx / talk 01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuss is relative, Foxnews didn't do an expose on us, so we win! tmtoulouse 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. So as I read this, it's basically Sanger pulling an Andy because his wiki-dick is too small? CZ is dying on the vine and wikipedia is the go-to source for information on virtually anything. ħuman 01:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau

And today's Wikipedia scandal-de-jour is Malamanteau. For some reason, fans of a website feel that they can make an exception to existing policy and make excessive noise when it gets treated just like any other new submission, and need to make 60 new talk page sections, all alike. Not as funny as a message someone made on a forum, saying that Wikipedia should keep everything including nonsense and should be more like the Hitchhiker's Guide. Guess he doesn't consider Earth that notable. --Sigma 7 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How come you didn't link to what you are talking about? Is that what happens when you are 7 sigmas from the norm? ħuman 05:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One is obvious where you can type it in directly (or visit some other news sites), and the other is a deleted comment from someone who never did any hosting. --Sigma 7 (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could find it, but a direct link would have been nice, so thank you for adding it. Especially the second one. Not sure which is funnier, but both are much funnier than that xkcd comic. Those are usually funny/funnier. ħuman 22:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I want my nine hours back. Please? ħuman 02:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

this does not debunk

if this place is supposed to debunk conservapedia then why do you just have a cheap uncyclopedia wannabe for wikipedia? it should serve to actually debunk what cp say about wp or this should be labeled as fun. Cheerleader Not Troll (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First, "RationalWiki is a community working together to explore and provide information about a range of topics centered around science, skepticism, and critical thinking." Not just debunking CP.

Second, this does pay way too much attention to CP for something in the mainspace, so Conservapedia or Fun might work. We could probably use an actual article about WP, though. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah. i know rw isnt only to debunk cp but probably conservatism in general. ha i say fuck them all. if rw and cp were to merge to make an overall anti-politician/anti-bullshit website and not sugar-coat ANY particular position i'd be "cheering you on." but yeah there needs to be an actual article about wp and how its not as liberal as cp says it is. Cheerleader Not Troll (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the main page and your welcome template links to understand what we are actually here for. CP is incidental. ħuman 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've tried to steer this away from CP, does it still need more work? ^bomination 00:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's good now. ħuman 01:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Death Star

Is it just me, or is there a certain similarity? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What is seen cannot be unseen. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not as bad as Mimas, though. That's no moon that's a spa... wait, no, it is actually a moon. ^bomination 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

JW 'lookatme'ism on Wikipedia

'Personal messages' of him appear on every page at the moment.

Big Brother is watching.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you click the little "x" in the upper right they go away. ħuman 06:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia^img, ED^img & 4chan^img are all sporting mock-Jimbo personal appeal banners. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadda - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You shoulda stuck to table, chairs, and oaken chests. But I like the Weasel's links. Got diffs for asshattery posterity? ħuman 04:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

<Captured>, see img links above. Feel free to crop & add to article. There's another variant of the ED one, & several more of the UP one, which I couldn't get capturebot to pick up, so some screengrabs might be needed if they're worth keeping. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo and his appeal have made it onto iTunes. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually laughed at "Jimmy Wales not only gave Objectivists a nice reputation, he got them to donate to his charity." See also: Jimmy Wales, Undead Scourge of Wikipedia and The meaning of "Scopophobia".--ZooGuard (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to 'bell the cat' and do something for Ass-flash-fly? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales as founder

In addition to a recent awards ceremony in Switzerland, the BBC has referred to Jimmy as "founder of Wikipedia" numerous times. See their technology news report a few days ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9211077.stm ^{— Unsigned, by: FreeThought / talk / contribs}

Wikipedia/Wikimedia also refers to him as "founder of Wikipedia", as do most other sources. But I must admit I've never heard him referred to as an awards ceremony in Switzerland before. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Gottlieb Duttweiler Award 2011 goes to Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia." FreeThought (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sowhat?Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

BoN edit revert

I'm inclined to agree with the BoN in this here edit. Yet it has been reverted. My reasoning for agreeing as such is that it eliminated a bunch of old tripe added to the beginning. I think removing what the BoN did makes the article look a bit more professional. Opinions? The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 23:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Тy^rannis 23:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think the whole contents should be removed, as the BoN did. But it could certainly be cut into something more concise. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 23:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Better? Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 23:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Before, it look like something off Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 00:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the new version better also. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Тy^{Please do not click on this} 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair criticism?

Oh Internet posted a lengthy critique of Wikipedia here: http://blog.ohinternet.com/11618/wikipedia-questionable-content/ - Do you think it's fair? Piggie (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? It's Oh Internet. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"firm no censorship" with uppercase letters

Wikipedia has a firm NO CENSORSHIP policy

What are we talking about? WikiLeaks? The no censorship policy only applies to information everyone probably already knows, and even then it's imperfect. Wikipedia is very useful and I literally learned as much from it as I did from school, but aside from being useful for finding out objective information, all subjective information on it is a scoreboard for its moderators in their free-for-all power struggle, where if you lose, you never existed.

Really, Wikipedia is a very good website and a genius idea, but the halo effect is a loop, so we should claim it to be things it is not. I mean, it's probably more neutral than the vast majority of other website (and more stable, because it keeps revision histories of everything, and its staff does not remove every ugly incident from there) so I definitely like it as an encyclopedia, but the "firm no censorship" is a total joke, even China is lucky that its internet isn't controlled by those people (but this applies to any moderated website).

It doesn't really make sense for an encyclopedia to have "firm no censorship" anyways, unless we're talking about an infinitely large one, which Wikipedia does NOT want to be. Wikipedia's talk page is for discussing the editing only, not for opinions, because that is off topic. You can not disallow going off topic and have "firm no censorship" at the same time. Think about it. It is like doing a back-flip while doing a front-flip at the same time before your mother was born. And you wont redefine "no censorship" unless you're a certified spin doctor. I guess I'll remove that part if no one objects. 24.85.161.72 (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:WP:Wikipedia is not censored. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source Especially when it comes to describing itself. It's an awesome website, but still an encyclopedia and nothing else, nowhere on Wikipedia can anyone who want to listen can hear anyone who wants to talk. It never denied that users on it are supposed to only talk about editing. 24.85.161.72 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely making people stick to the site's point isn't censorship? It's an encyclopedia,not a forum. I don't see what you're driving at. Sophie^Wilder 20:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We haven't claimed that WP is other than an encyclopedia & a tertiary source, and our article already notes that it isn't a reliable source. We do not suggest that WP is or should be an open forum for anybody to say anything about anything on any page. We cite the "no censorship" policy in the context of explaining why WP includes subjects, language & images that some readers might find "obscene"; much as this issue is outlined on the policy page I linked above. It really isn't clear what point you have to make. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm glad we aren't arguing over this. Wikipedia was never made to be some forum where people can write for anyone who wants to read, to be an encyclopedia and nothing else. Thus, it censors everything non-encyclopedic, such as complaints from people who disagree. How would "firm NO CENSORSHIP" make any sense? Unless you redefine censorship into "not doing what your meant to do," in which case there would indeed be no censorship on it... but that is quite a far cry from the implicit definition. By the way, I praise Wikipedia for actually letting people know that censorship does occur, which few other sites could do. It allows you to see all(maybe all) those crossed out revision histories in grey, instead of pretending they never existed. 24.85.161.72 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

First two lines

"...overly verbose and full of liberal bias, porn, gossip, slander, smear, bias, and atheist propaganda.[1] What's even worse, they occasionally use "BCE" instead of "BC", denying the historical achievements of Christianity." This is just an in-joke about Conservapedia, isn't it? Changing back to the boring sunsible version. Sophie^Wilder 15:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good. Ty^JFBAA 15:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Linkdump

Either me, or David Gerard will need these later:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bradley_Manning&diff=569792514&oldid=569792392
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Proposed_decision#Discriminatory_speech_by_Daniel32708
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Daniel32708

There will be more, I don't have much time at the moment.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Transphobia section contains some outdated information

The section on homophobia and transphobia mentions the Chelsea Manning incident at length, and it is true the article was moved back to "Bradley Manning" initially. Nevertheless, a quick search reveals that the article is currently titled "Chelsea Manning" with the correct pronouns. As written, the section in this article seems to suggest that the transphobes won, when ultimately, it's obvious they did not win. It may be advisable to add this new information and possibly change some of what is already written to reflect recent developments.

-Procrastinator who can't find time to make a gorram account. 71.182.158.210 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't title the article Chelsea Manning as many of their article versions, such as the German one, still harrasses her by referring to her using an irrelevant former name and "he". The English version did actually move the article thanks to the hard work of a few decent people, long overdue and when keeping the old title had become indefensible because every mainstream media in the world referred to her as Chelsea and had done so for weeks, but in retaliation, they banned pretty much every visible person who had championed Chelsea (including the editor making the move proposal) while not banning anyone of the persons making transphobic comments. So the non-extremists didn't actually win, as Wikipedia said comments comparing trans people to dogs was ok on Wikipedia, while the decent editors who made sure the article was eventually retitled after months of resistance were harrassed/banned for calling out such commentary, and indeed in retaliation for their work to retitle the article. The end result set a horrible and essentially far-right extremist precedent in regard to Wikipedia's way of dealing with transgender topics in the future. Most of the vocal far-right editors who opposed treating Chelsea with basic dignity are still active making a nuisance of themselves. Robert Wells (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Their Arbitrators already reached the conclusion that socially and biologically associated genders are distinct, and so someone with a (biologically) masculine body who identifies themselves as female is to be referred to by female pronouns. Pro-trans users such as "Bob K31416" have spent a significant portion of time commenting on the issue ("Bob" went as far as getting involved with Jimbo and the Manual of Style since August, forcing me to actually click "older 500" to see it all). Bob K31416 hasn't been blocked and still edits (though removing the Wikipedia donor badge might be an indication of ill satisfaction). The IP, "150.209.85.148", on the other hand, also made a few comments over the past weeks, but his edits only went as far as calling out differing perceptions of gender as "fantasy". That IP was blocked for crossing the line, as well as two cases of baboon-related vandalism, but "Bob" and some other users were warned not to start and continue pronoun-based discussions again and just refer people to the ArbCom conclusion. I haven't seen that many transphobic comments just yet, but the second move discussion log's Opposition mostly consists of "X was known as Y when all notable things happened". That argument is legitimate and not-transphobic (though transphobic people such as that IP did use it, also), though it won't work on Wikipedia if there's an article about a novelist who changed their pen-name several books in.-- 194.81.33.118 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Lightbulbs

Came across [5] while looking up something else - is there a RW version? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia

... is going soft.

Nothing on the main page has caused a fuss/consider the children/annoyed a lot of people in months (the smallpox pic was the last one to cause a stir). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly because people have got desensitised to it and no one cares any more. I would say that is a goal well-achieved. ^theist 01:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

harshing their mellow

We state under Skepticism on wikipedia "A group of alternative medicine practitioners created a Change.org petition asking him to "create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing" as these tawdry requirements for "facts" and "evidence" were harshing their mellow."

I'm not sure this makes sense. I've looked up "harshing their mellow" on the intertubes and I still don't understand it. I would correct it but as I don't understand it I'm reluctant to try.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Try urban dictionary. It's a pretty well-known idiom, mostly associated with stoners & hippies. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I did go there but I still had problems. I think the structure of the sentence may have confused me as well. But if everyone but me understands it then that's fine.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If a joke needs to be explained, it doesn't work. Like Bob, I went a bit wtf when I saw it. I'd say "harshing their buzz," but, geezer that I am, I accept that I may no longer be hip to the contemporary jive. Casting about for alternative wording without joy... best I can come up with is "precipitating a golden shower upon their bliss" which sort of rhymes, but seems labored. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The irony is, 'harshing my/your/their mellow' is so associated with the 1960s hippie culture that geezers would be the most likely to get it at this point.----72.174.134.233 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard of it either, and I'm hardly a geezer. It certainly isn't known among my circle of friends (quite a few of them are stoners and hippies), or in my area in general. - Grant (Talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I almost never set foot in English-speaking planets countries these days so I had to look up "stoners" as well. Does that make me a bad person?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Never come across it (the "harshing" thing, that is) Scream!! (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded it.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 07:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thusly

"Thusly"? Don't you mean thus you buffoons? ^{— Unsigned, by: 87.114.60.218 / talk / contribs}

Merriam Webster: Definition of THUSLY: in this manner : thus. OK? Scream!! (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Cute

I like how you guys intentionally leave out the fact that RationalWiki is also copying Wiki, but you didn't fail to mention any of the other websites did you?^{— Unsigned, by: 173.81.199.193 / talk / contribs} 04:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Really, don't.

First, a Wikipedian would insist that you should avoid shortening Wikipedia's name to "Wiki", because a wiki is the generic name for a collaboratively edited website (not necessarily an encyclopedia), and the term predates Wikipedia.

Second, what do you mean by "copying Wiki[pedia]"? Rational Wiki does not copy content from Wikipedia. RW is using the same (free, open-source) wiki software that Wikipedia uses, but it's not an encyclopedia, and it doesn't try to be one - the extent of its scope is much more limited, and its house style is quite different.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Combatting WP

Going sufficiently under the radar to develop 'the weird and the wonderful and the generator of many pages of anguished complaints' articles so they appear on the main page.

What would mirror-image WP look like? (Reference to Adam Smith's 'life being nasty, brutal and short' having been already made). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a section on us!

It says this :

In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, repeatedly attempted to edit Conservapedia's article on breast cancer to include evidence arguing against Conservapedia's claim that abortion was a major cause of the disease. Conservapedia administrators "questioned his credentials and shut off debate".[14] Several editors whose accounts were blocked by Conservapedia administrators, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki, a sometimes satirical and sometimes serious wiki website with articles written from a secular, progressive perspective.[78] RationalWiki's self-stated purpose is to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "anti-science movement", and "crank ideas", as well as to conduct "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" and explore "how these subjects are handled in the media."[79][80]

According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2007, RationalWiki members "monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.".[14]

What do you think of this? ^{— Unsigned, by: TemplarJLS / talk / contribs}

And in other news, Queen Anne's dead. If you're talking about the cyber-vandalism bit, well there is apparently a reference for that from a newspaper which says that, even if it's not true (anymore). I guess the best that we can hope for is that a reputable publication prints an article which says that RationalWiki does not encourage its users to engage in cyber-vandalism. Until then, I wouldn't recommend trying to alter that paragraph. Spud (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As Spud pointed out, this is very old news for most of the regulars. The publication date of the source in question should have been a hint.

Also, please avoid using "us" in this way - RW's community is not a monolith.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia article, again

About the newly added link: RW is not an encyclopedia, and those sources are horrible. Also, there's no "us".--ZooGuard (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Use for references

Just so I'm clear on this: It's OK to use wikipedia for references, right? Greatnecro (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A question

Can and may I create a page based on my research on the administrators' behaviour, with evidence and such, Greatnecro and ZooGuard? ^{— Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs} 07:57, 7 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Probably best not. When somebody did that here for Portuguese Wikipedia, it didn't go down well. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What happened, Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}? Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

Put it like this: "he LANCBd" Scream!! (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Scream!! and Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}, I was already in Wikipedia. It's just that I thought that even with the most rational arguments on why I shouldn't be blocked for a simple spelling mistake or why they should calm down on me the same five administrators would gang up on me and threaten to block me. I still have my log, and unblocked, so maybe we could use that to test out the administrators. Believe me, just sending them an apology message would incite them. I have the evidence I need. Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My own (limited) experience with writing a Wikipedia article was rather sobering for me. I wrote an article about a figure in the ROA, "Russian Army Of Liberation", which collaborated with Germany in WW2. The article was basically a translation of one on the same figure in the Russian-language version of Wikipedia. The individual concerned was formerly a Soviet journalist and played a significant role in ROA propaganda but he disappeared mysteriously in the summer of 1944 near Berlin, possibly abducted by the Gestapo. There were rumours he was in fact Jewish, and these may have been a factor in his abduction, if this was what indeed happened. Basically, his story was a minor but fascinating sideshow of WW2. My article was repeatedly refused on quality grounds (it was my first try, admittedly) but I addressed all the issues brought up by administrators, adding that it was essentially a translation, to which the reply was that perhaps the Russian Wikipedia has different standards. Anyhow, it was never accepted, even though English-language Wikipedia seems to accept all sorts of garbage as articles. Ι had a feeling they found the subject unappealing but never admitted to it. After that experience, I lost interest in writing for Wikipedia. Philosophyfootball (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia statistics

... can be found here [6]: if WP was a nation what world rankings would it have? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The 15 functions of Wikipedia

As it is coming up to WP's 15th birthday, what are its functions?

• The source of all (mis)information (both, at the same time, in the same article)
• Gresham's Law as applied to encyclopedias
• A point of first resort.
• A point of multiple resort (see all the websites copying from WP).
• A fruitful ground for Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells and their relatives.
• A fruitful source of complaints by 'nobody agrees with our (so off-beat they are out of tune) theorists.
• A (mis)quote mine.

What others? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Pedantry

Wikipedia has '36 million articles' - could an approximate date be added (thus enabling other pedants to update it). Anna Livia (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I liked the nonsense

Hmmph. Making fun of wikipedia for being easily modified is kinda passe, but I miss those jokes. Nostalgia. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Classic humor never goes outta style. At least put The Encyclopedia Any Kid Can Vandalize back in. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Pedantry part 2

'As of 2015, Wikipedia boasts over 36 million articles in over 290 languages- 3 1/2 years later what are the current figures? Anna Livia (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

There's currently 203 million content pages across the Wikimedia domains, but only 50 million articles on all versions of Wikipedia. — Dysk (contribs) 20:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I updated slightly but only used approximate figures because accuracy is a waste of time. --Annanoon (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

So long as it is 'recent enough' a broad figure suffices. Anna Livia (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)