Talk:Wikipedia

From RationalWiki

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.

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)

Contents 1 Jimmy Wales, "pornographer" 2 who wrote this? 3 RW stance 4 UBX I made on teh wikkypidea 5 Musharaf 6 WikiProject Biography 7 wp:Portal:Border

[edit] 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)

[edit] who wrote this?

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

[edit] 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 ^annoy 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)

[edit] UBX I made on teh wikkypidea

See here. --_transResident Transfan^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 ^clues 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 ^{why is there a weird line through the "h" in my username?} 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^{e society} 21:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, taking Eira literally, a good wikicommons goat image ought to be just the ticket... ħuman ^cabal 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 ^bean 21:07, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I hate goats. _{↳↑⇨↕▽←} 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)

[edit] Musharaf

Anyone know why Pervez Musharaf has been on the front page right of wp for fucking ever?-- -PalMD ^{--Take two aspirin and call someone else} 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). π 19:25, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

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

Not dark yet on this end of EST.-- -PalMD ^{--Did that sound a little harsh?} 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^{ly possible} 20:49, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)