Talk:CreationWiki

Actually, a side-by-side of the CreationWiki side-by-side at http://creationwiki.org/Creation_%28EvoWiki%29 might be interesting (though the formatting could be a problem). Or are these guys so far beyond the rational pale that it's no use responding to them?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 10:02, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to step up our efforts against them. They're not Conservapedia, and they take themselves more seriously and rationally then CP. They're more established, too. We'd gain street cred by taking them on. Let's do it.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 12:44, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I'm not sure whether or not "outing" the identities of those contributors contravenes our community standard: 3 Personal information about other users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site.You're the lawyer though. What do you think? :-) --Bob^{bing for apples} 14:17, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Good question... Terry's volunteered it, though, so has Conservative. Karajou is obvious, so is Tmajor, etc. I don't think it's private information in that sense, since it doesn't take any sleuthing.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 14:26, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

That said, though, do you think publishing those links is creepy? If so, I'll pull them, or you pull them.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 14:47, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Creation Wiki Going-Ons

Inspired by Human's comment at Conservapedia Talk:End the War - but how can we know what's going on? Their recent changes are inaccessible!!! :o

Anyway, I found it vaguely amusing that they're apparently attempting to have articles on every single animal... or something...

Lame, I know, but I'm trying to kick a habit here. Uchiha^KATON! 15:26, 1 December 2007 (EST)

There are other ways than recent changes to see WIGO - can we view page histories, for example? Find controversial ones and see how they develop them? Can someone get registered (not to vandalize) just to peek "behind the scenes"? It might not quite be a WIGO like the CP one, more of a "what they think?" in more detail linked from this base article? As people compile that, we might gain more insight on what is interesting to report on (and refute!) there? human 15:46, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I would be very much in favor of this. Would we have to have someone pretend to be a creationist, get an account, and then "contribute" while just telling us things like page histories? Uh, guys, page history is visible to all :-). Also, talk pages are now visible... thanks to me :-D !αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 13:21, 2 December 2007 (EST)

I see talk pages, "New pages" and page history. "Recent changes" doesn't work though.--Bob^{bing up} 13:58, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Shock!! Horror!!! CW says Richard Dawkins is a professor!! Just don't tell Andy!--Bob^{bing up} 14:27, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Idea

Would anyone like to start a refutation of pages like this on CW?-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That would mean I'd have to actually read that drivel, right? Hmmmm human 10:07, 17 January 2008 (EST)

"...and [Groups such as the National Academy of Sciences] counter with arguments derived from naturalistic scientific research."

How dare they! NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 14:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I angries up the blood; good times.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 14:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

CreationWiki down.

The FSM strikes again! CreationWiki has been down since wednesday, probably a lot longer because google has index the CreationWiki error message. - Icewedge 03:56, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Does anybody know what actually happened to these guys?--Bob^{bing up} 04:22, 21 February 2008 (EST)

“” I am sorry to say that CreationWiki is down. Our semi-dedicated server has failed completely. As near as I can tell, an update to PHP, intended to allow a "choice" between PHP4 and PHP5, broke MediaWiki completely. You can't even do an edit-and-save without it invoking a script file a hundred zillion times. We have applied for a dedicated server and are waiting for our Web hosts to configure it for us and tell us that it's ready.--TerryHTalk 10:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

From Scorpion's talk page on CP. Genghis ^Marauding 07:51, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 13:03, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I have two theories:

1) an intelligent designer is fucking with them

2) Linus tried to "fix" them.

162.82.215.199 13:25, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Stop it with the3 nasty to Linus already! Susan^Purrrrr 13:28, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Peer review

The bit on peer review got me wondering. The CW peer review is about making sure everyone is on the same page and correctly following the line and keeping dissenting voices out. Its the type of thing PR departments at companies do, and you could call that peer review too. Peer review in scientific journals is another thing that is about showing how something is done in combination with encouraging others to do it and reproduce the results. Could it be the CW types actually think that scientific peer review is the same as public relations peer review and that there is a conspiracy of scientists to keep their ideas out? Hanlon's razor suggests that this is a better description of what is going on. --Shagie 13:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

He he, I remember that at the wp article on neanderthal, some guy with asperger's (user:rDos?) kept trying to add an EL to his "neanderthal theory" web site. He claimed it was "peer reveiwed" - because it was apparently well-received in the autism/asperger's community. He thought it meant something rather different, too. human 13:26, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Yep. And thus, every time a CW type hears the words 'peer review' they think 'scientific elders keeping people from publishing troubling findings' because thats what it means in their processes of publishing religious texts. --Shagie 13:33, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ref misentered?

The reference currently numbered 11: "CreationWiki administrator Tmajor blanks a discussion of the status, here, over the objections of another administrator."

The word "here" presumably is supposed to link to evidence supporting the sentence, but it only links to the edit page of the CreationWiki page at RationalWiki. Searching the history I found it originated with this edit and has never been fixed. 4.143.246.0 02:09, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

You are correct. It looks like someone pasted the reference in from their browser address bar, but got the wrong tab, perhaps? I "removed" it and replaced it with a "fact" tag, hopefully someone who knows what it was supposed to be can find the real reference sometime. Thanks for the tip! human 13:26, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Ridiculous articles

There are some really ridiculous articles on that site: check out this http://creationwiki.org/Flood_mechanics . Is this a parody ? It's pretty hard to tell. Heideggerian 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately no. They can't tell a hawk from a handsaw, their wind is always north north west. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all so clear! This is not even poe's law. :-) Good find.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you guffaw at their articles when so many of yours are xtra large targets for parody? MarcusCicero 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)