RationalWiki:Constitutional Convention, April 2008

Step 1: Identify the problems

What are our problems?

Anyone can add one, just check to make sure it hasn't already been added. Please place each submission in its own subheader, using three equal signs, like so: ===header===.

Make sure to cite specific examples.

Submissions which are snarky will be removed, as they are unhelpful and distract from the purpose.

Purpose of Rationalwiki

Rationalwiki started as a meeting point for editors booted from Conservapedia or anyway in contrast with Conservapedia's management. RW's purposes are written somewhere. Now that this has become a melting pot of new and old emigrèes from CP, funny or funny Uncyclopedians and even people from Wikipedia, I'd say that a review of RW's purposes are in order. For example, should it focus mostly on CP (specific example: WIGO)? Should it mostly be a place for Lulz (specific examples: you provide them, RA)? Or should it be a haven for Rational articles not only opposed to CP, but to other irrationalities in this world, see the wonderful effort about that ID movie. These can all live together, but some rules and thoughts on RW's future are necessary in my opinion. Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 12:15, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

One of the focus points for many of the old-school RW-pedians is science/woo - others, like myself, are more into politics: do we want to see more of the former and less of the latter? PFoster 12:42, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I think it might not be a bad idea to pull back from making more encyclopedia articles and concentrate on things like side-by-sides and specific refutations. Like a page of Joe Mercola, or what's been happening with the Expelled Leader's Guide. They seem to be the things that really catch contributors' imaginations, and they're good to read because you have it all laid out in front of you. Could be a good draw. --Kels 12:46, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Rational = Atheist

There are both atheist and religious editors here. And even if they were all atheist, it doesn't mean that atheist equals rational. Since we have lost some editors because of this, some rules should be devised. While I'm not particularly religious, I tend to sympathize with Catholics when they are, irrationally in my humble opinion, called Superstitious Animists (as you can see from my new nick). I also find some "atheist" edits of dubious quality and rationality, such as those of an unnamed female contributor (not Susan). Besides, I know many very rational people who happen to be religious. I don't know Akjeldsen's religious views, but at least he is rational, isn't he? Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 12:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I second that. Dark Matter Glaucopis 12:40, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Third - rational =/= atheism, and tolerance should be a touchstone. PFoster 12:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Fourthed. Despite being a hardcore naturalist atheist, I dislike the indiscriminate bashing of religion I often come across here. (It's also a personal issue for me—my brother is the most rational person I know, and he is very religious.) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:03, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Fifthed ;). While I am a strong atheist, any step away from agnosticism at an intellectual level is irrational (IMO), and any step away from it due to personal experience is just that - personal. Ironically, since we really don't have any evangelists for religions active on the site, the occasional crude or blunt or rude or overly simplistic anti-religious things I run into here strike me as very out-of-place, and inconsiderate. That said, when YEC/ID trolls turn up and try to alter our articles to meet or support their perspective, that is also out of line. Tolerance is the key, but not to the point of irrationality. human 14:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Powers & Rules

The history of RW is complicated. As a result, there are many "groups": there are the Sysops; there are the founders; there are the members of RW 1.0 and those of the non existant cabal. For discussion, there are the forums, there is the IRC channel, the cabal has its own meeting place and there are RW's talk pages. In addition, we officially are a mobocracy. We started without blocking anybody ever. Then the first compromise was to give short blocks to bunch-of-numbers vandals. Now, besides Lulz blocks, clear vandals are blocked - and TK. Another point of discussion is reversion of contributions by editors. I myself have reverted a couple of contributions - without really knowing were I in the right or in the wrong. There are no rules, there is no identified power hierarchy, there are no procedures for determined controversies between editors. One could argue that they are not needed - but recent problems show otherwise. Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 12:27, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Tmtoulouse

As I have said before, Tmtoulouse is the one thing that keeps this wiki from taking off. He is clearly the most serious problem that you face. He needs to have his powers taken away, and all of his IPs range blocked. TmtamesP 14:50, 31 March 2008 (EDT)