RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?
- To see articles that could be written, but haven't yet been made, see our To Do List.
This is a guideline, which can be edited by anyone who feels they can add to or explain it better, about what a RationalWiki article should be, and importantly what it should not be. This applies only to main namespace articles, the other namespaces may have different standards or no standards at all. Since project whitewash is just about the main namespace that's all we will be discussing.
RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia
Many of the contributors for RationalWiki will be most familiar with wikis that are attempting to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the big fish in this pond, but Conservapedia is another example. Most of the contributors at RationalWiki enjoy Wikipedia, and we encourage people to use it for research, fun, or anything else that requires more encyclopedic and neutral articles. We cannot and do not want to compete with Wikipedia. We are attempting to create something that is different but hopefully complementary to Wikipedia.
Therefore, when sitting down to write an article for RationalWiki get the "encyclopedia" mindset out of your head before you begin.
RationalWiki is not neutral point of view
As a site we have a point of view, and that point of view is that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with. We believe that the support of, profiting from and creation of pseudosciences is dangerous and wrong. We create our articles from this perspective, demonstrating the strength of science and the folly of the cranks. Do not be afraid to clearly state that some idea is Bullshit.
RationalWiki is original research
We are not attempting to be a repository of knowledge already written. That means that collection and synthesis of sources into new ideas is encouraged. While references are always desired, feel free to draw conclusions not clearly stated in a source, and feel free to synthesize multiple sources into a new pattern. Feel free to offer commentary and analysis that is outside your sources. Feel free to slant the content (not the facts) towards the goals of our site. Feel free to use a wide array of writing styles in order to make your points clear. These are collaborative essays as much as articles, and rhetoric clearly has its place.
RationalWiki does have a sense of humor
While most of our random jokes will wind up in the Fun: namespace, do not abandon the humor we have cultivated as a community in the main namespace. Sarcasm, satire, absurdist commentary, and witty asides are all part of how we want to present material. It makes it both fun to edit and fun to read. For the main space though humor should be directed at making our point. Again, remember we have a point of view and a goal, if the humor helps highlight our point in a constructive manner then it's probably better than the "not funny" option!
RationalWiki can be serious
Perhaps this is more important than the above point, but as with all things, humor cannot be all things to all people. Articles that do not have any real serious material or point probably are best placed in the fun: namespace, or even deleted. Remember, the main name space is what we present to new users as "who we are and what we can do for you." If the first thing they see is an article that is nothing but inside jokes it may drive them away.
How to RWify an article
Remembering all of these guidelines, how might someone go about RWifying an article that has been marked as "good" but still needing some of our good old POV?
The first step might be to start a dialog on the article's talk page. Find people who have signed up to work on the RationalWiki:Project Whitewash and leave a message on their talk page stating your desire to work on an article and any insight they have on the direction it should take. Think to yourself, how might this material be used to refute a pseudoscience topic, how might this material be misused to support a pseudoscience topic, and how might this topic illuminate some aspect of human thought or culture that might help us answer "why do people believe stupid things"? There are many such questions to ask, and the answers should give you clues about how best to angle the topic to play to RationalWiki strengths.
The final question you should ask when looking at an article is: If someone came and read our article after looking it up on wikipedia, would they come away with new information, new perspective or new thoughts they could not gain from an encyclopedia entry? If every article we have can answer that question with a yes, then we are doing our job! There is a category (Category:Articles needing expansion) which is added to articles in need of expansion i.e. Where the subject would be improved by application of some (your?) expert knowledge.