Talk:RationalWiki/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Speedy delete? Not so fast...

Although I did not write this article (or, rather, point it to another article), and really I have nothing at all to do with RationalWiki, I have heard enough about it on the web to think perhaps this article doesn't quite meet CSD. The subject of the article, I think, carries with it enough notability for a suitable article to be written, although I would agree that such an article has not yet been written. At the very least, let's not CSD this thing and set a precedent for an article never to be written on the subject. Perhaps by subjecting this to AfD instead, we may find reason to keep the article. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This speedy request is for speedy deletion of this redirect to the Conservapedia article. I'm sure Rationalwiki gets mentioned on the web in a few blogs and forums, but there is nothing to indicate notability through significant coverage in reliable sources, which Internet forums and blogs are definitely not. Articles have been created on Rationalwiki before and each time they have been deleted as vanity or promo articles on a non-notable subject. This redirect I am requesting speedy deletion of appears to be an attempt to get around the patent non-notability of the subject matter by redirecting to the Conservapedia article, which includes an unwarranted mention of and link to Rationalwiki. Rationalwiki is an attack/stalking site and furthermore is simply not notable. There is no need to allow them to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was that LA Times article I see User:Tmtoulouse mentioned in Talk:Conservapedia. But that alone is insufficient to establish notability. I have no dogs in the hunt here; it wouldn't bother me in the least to see this article get redlinked. I simply want it to be deleted-- or kept-- on clear consensus; one editor's rather vehement objections over another's somewhat questionable actions vis a vis WP:COI do not a consensus make nor break. All I'm saying is let's calm down a bit and take it slow. After all, articles that fail AfD go to the same place as those that "pass" CSD. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, this is a redirect, and as such is not really something that is handled via "speedy delete" or even "article for deletion." The proper place to discus this is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth delete this useful redirect? I have heard of Rationalwiwki; I wonder if Wikipedia tells me anything about it; I look it up; I am redirected to an article on Conservapedia that at least mentions it in passing. That's a whole lot better than a redlink. As a matter of fact, I'd guess that RationalWiki is notable enough for its own article. Trying to get the current redirect version deleted smacks of extreme prejudice and POV-pushing! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While I wouldn't argue about RationalWiki's notability :), the problem is what it has been for some time, there aren't enough wp:reliable sources to write an article. The only wp:rs sources that are out there are the LA Times article, and an article in the Guardian. Everything else is blogs, forums, and self published material. If a few more secondary reliable sources pick up on RationalWiki I think there is enough for an article but that hasn't happened yet. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't argue that, Tmtoulouse. Still, the speedy delete request was made, and I'm simply throwing a {{hangon}} to keep the redirect from disappearing without any kind of discussion to ascertain consensus. Maybe someone would like to kick this over to WP:RFD, but that someone won't be me as I have no real proposal for the redirect/article at this time. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The speedy has all ready been removed, and the recommendation made to move this to RFD if someone wants to press the issue. The only one that seems to want to is the IP address that was doing a jihad on any mention of RW on Wikipedia. For the time being they seem to have dispersed to greener pastures. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I say we leave well enough alone, and move on to other, more pressing matters elsewhere. If someone does want to press the issue, though, I've heard enough here to cast a vote to keep on any RfD. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Owner

Peter Lipson is not the owner of the site, the site really doesn't have an owner. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed.--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reset to redirect to conservapedia article

That is what should happen to this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a redirect until a few days ago when a Conservapedia user expanded the article without consensus to contain a very biased wording. I've reworded it to remove the bias and proposed it for deletion.--ParisianBlade (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll boldly change it to a redirect again; that seems to be the long-standing consensus. I don't think there are many (if any) sources that talk about RW outside the context of Conservapedia. It could be argued that RW is only notable in its relationship with CP. Fishal (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RW Is Its Own Thing

It should not redirect to the entry on CP at all. You can mention the relationship between RW and CP in both of their respective entries, but do not redirect this to the CP entry. The proponents of this silly idea are not fooling anyone. You can't talk about RW on CP (i know because I am active on CP as well) so you come here and do some reverse vandalism. There is no good reason to completely redirect RW to CP, at all. Jersey John (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Tmt I'm surprised you're advocating this seeing how by your user page you say you are a part of RW. Do you REALLY want the RW entry to redirect to CP? Don't you see the inherent danger in that? Jersey John (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to let this die. I WILL revert any redirect to the CP entry. Jersey John (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see an article on RW, when a proper article could be written, an article that fits with in wikipedia policy. At the moment that is impossible because of the standards of sourcing needed for an article on wikipedia and for statements about the subject of an article. There are some substantial factual errors in this article, and that has to do with the fact that the only source is a few paragraphs from one article. If there were more sources it would be easier to tell the true story. The fact that there is a single source also violates wikipedia policy for article inclusion. But I try to be very "light handed" with my actions on RW related stuff on this site because of my inherent COI. When the true story of RW can be told that is when an article should be created. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the creation for an independent page for 'Rational' wiki, as Rationalwiki is a completely separate website from Conservapedia, not to mention the fact that Rationalwiki endorses vandalism of our site (Conservapedia) --Philip Venson (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Philip, that's the dumbest thing you have ever said here. We specifically say that we don't endorse vandalism. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Got any sources for that "fact"? -- Nx ^talk 18:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're asking a Conservapedian for sources? They don't even know the meaning of that word! This fact is clearly shown by Philly boy's change to the RationalWiki article. You're not on Conservapedia now Phil, you actually need to be able to show that information you add on WP isn't just pulled out of your ass. HenryLlarson (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Aren't there any rules about offensive language here?-- Philip Venson^{Support our Troops!} 12:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So when attacked, you go hide behind rules of etiquitte? Yes, I suppose so. But you already violated a host of rules with your article. --The Resistor 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Venson, precisely how do you define "offensive language"? Possibly, "Language that is not to be used unless you're bashing a liberal"? ᛟ ListenerX^TalkerX 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was only revealing rationalwiki's main purpose (or what seems to be it's main purpose) on the internet. That purpose seems to be acting as a gathering point for vandals of Conservapedia.

I admit , my may seem to be biased if seen through the eyes of rationalwiki users, but at the same time, It is not a lie to say that your website (rationalwiki) seems to act as a gathering point for vandals of Conservapedia.

My main message here, I suppose, is a simple plea to Rationalwiki users to stop vandalising Conservapedia. After all, we at Conservapedia do not vandalise your website (as far as I know) so I honestly cannot see why you have any reason to vandalise our website. N.B. If you know a case of a Conservapedia user vandalising your website, feel free to let me know) -- Philip Venson^{Support our Troops!} 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Philip, you're clueless. We specifically say no vandalism (unless you count adding facts as vandalism, which you apparently do). But you can talk about on RW- we'd love to have you over there, and we don't do ideological blocking (unlike some people I know). --The Resistor 17:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to address a message or make a plea to any other site. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Venson, Jinx has vandalized RationalWiki somewhat; see here and here for examples. ᛟ ListenerX^TalkerX 01:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A compromise

Would either party object to a neutral party writing an article for this wiki? It does seem sort of silly for it to be pointing to section in the Conservapedia's article.--Kross^Talk 18:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Update

I put a new redirect address in place closer to the actual RationalWiki text. (The original landing spot was more than a full screen away.)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Enquiring Minds, etc.

I agree that RationalWiki should have its own article, but I have a curious question. Whilst Conservapedia was questioned as a suitable source, surely isn't there something that can be quoted directly from RW itself about its goals, mission, and policies?

Also, I notice no mention of a classy Conservapedia competitor, A Storehouse of Knowledge, kind of a 'gentle' Christian encyclopedia begun, as I understand it, by Christians who were dismayed by Conservapedia's authoritarian far-right stance.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted redirect

I don't see clear consensus for the original redirect in the first place, and it makes no sense for it to redirect to such a paltry source of info which cannot be expanded. I've restored the last decent article form of this page, and tagged it disputed (since the claim that it was founded by Peter Lipton seems like it may be an error on the part of the L.A. Times). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times names Lipson and is a reliable source, however, according to WP:SELFPUB we can (with caution) use RationalWiki as a source for non-controversial information about itself. I assume that basic historical info (like who started it) is non-controversial - but maybe a non RWian (ie not me) should decide? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that notable. First two pages of Google seem to be RationalWiki's own material or other scrapes. The link [1] would suggest serious WP:COI issues at play. Seems a very good candidate for AfD. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree actually, a couple of passing mentions in news articles doesn't really confer notability. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Which in other words means I will start an AfD on this unless it gets something of the following (taken from Wikipedia:Notability_(web),

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

• Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
• Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]

3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).

I fail to see how RationalWiki has any of the above. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen! In regards to a rather liberal website and "encyclopedias" categories

The two "encyclopedias" categories should be removed. RW describes itself as "not an encyclopedia" here. I'd remove them myself but I'm wary of overstepping the WP:COI line. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

They say that they are just a wiki and that they are not notable for a Wikipedia article. I would prefer to just AfD the lot rather than cherry-pick. Leave it as it is, let AfD process start and settle, then act on the outcome of that. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that 1. the encyclopedia cats should be removed as they are clearly incorrect, and 2. the AFD should proceed and result in deletion (or redirecting to conservapedia), since RW is simply not notable at this time. The reason I suggest fixing those cats is in case one day RW does become notable, the "most recent good version" won't contain a glaring error. Huw Powell (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye. There had been consensus for turning-to-redirect back in 2008 (though it had been on the Conservapedia talk page, namely this section, from what I quickly gathered), so this restoring-to-article move doesn't make terribly much sense in my eyes (and I say that as a RationalWiki member). I don't recall any major developments in the Notability area since back then, just how I don't recall significant opposition by RW members to turning it into a redirect. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A redirect would seem odd to me, since they're not the same thing. Normally I think a redirect is used when one thing has more than one name. But I haven't been following this. Rees11 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

the redirect was logical at the time, because Conservapedia was the main topic of RW. Now things are different, which oddly leaves this article in a quandary - it's neither notable enough for an article nor monotopical (is that even a word?) enough for a redirect to Conservapedia. I'll have a hunt round for a better redirect target. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Either delete it or find a *much* better redirect. The Conservapedia redirect is not helpful in the least, particularly since the claim that the person in question founded the site appears questionable. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't qualify for List of wikis it only allows wikis with WP articles (RW got delisted from there in 2008) so this is probably the end of the road. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First, my apologies for not disclaiming that I am a RationalWiki editor (user:human). Second, the LA Times saying PalMD started RW is blatantly incorrect, sadly no one has corrected this in the press, so WP gets to assert a non-fact because a reporter got it wrong. Lastly, editing this page to a redirect (how about to empiricism?) means people, regular editors, can see the history. Deleting hides all that. Huw Powell (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times doesn't say that he started it, but it words it somewhat poorly. It says "Lipson and several other editors [...] started their own website", which puts him on the same level as me or you, IIRC. It doesn't make him the founder. Of course, he's the only one who is named, which makes him stand out, but that doesn't change what was actually said. The Register sadly didn't get the memo, though. --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Another source, likely for later

DustFormsWords brought this up on the AfD page: Internet rules and laws: the top 10, from Godwin to Poe

I personally don't think it's of much use at this point since it doesn't really tell much about RW, but at some point in the future, it might come in handy, so I'm mostly posting it as a reminder for future generations. --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

COI

Several RationalWiki editors have edited the manispace today, and I have seen no declarations of COI. Can anyone direct me to that. Further, let me declare I am a RationalWiki sysop. I am asking neurtral Admins to monitor these actions closely. A handful of Conservapedia Sysops (fewer than a dozen) have blocked and deleted over 10,000 sockpuppet accounts from roughly two dozen Rationalwiki editors over the past three years. That averages out to 50-100 sockpuppets daily. There have been many days they have mobilized as many as 50-100 sockpuppets. Thank you. nobs (talk)

Are you talking about sockpuppet accounts at Wikipedia or Conservapedia? I'm not sure I see the relevance of the latter to COIs at WP. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, are you trying to discredit RationalWiki editors? Are you suggesting that we would attack WP using sockpuppets? I would like to remind you that serious accusations require serious evidence. -- Nx / talk 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting several Rationalwiki editors have edited this mainspace, and I can not find declarations of COI. Can we get links to those declarations if they are not on this page, please? nobs (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We have links to RW on our userpages (although according to your friend User:PCHS-NJROTC, that's spamming and a violation of WP:UP...). Noone is trying to hide their COI here. -- Nx / talk 00:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mine is in the "Gentlemen!" section, and I noted my COI of my edits on the Conservapedia talk page (20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)) and also discussed my involvement with RW earlier on the same page (15:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)). My edits fixed a direct error (article made claim that's not in the source) which had been subject of discussion on the CP talk page, bringing it closer in line with the corresponding section in the CP article.

I wonder why you don't bring up your other COI, Rob - that you are a sysop on a site that opposes RW in any way possible? And please, provide evidence of your claim regarding "10,000 sockpuppet accounts from roughly two dozen Rationalwiki editors over the past three years". I'm curious, please enlighten us. You can start by telling us if that number includes all the "Recreate your account with your first name and last initial" blocks. Or the highly selective 90/10 blocks (a.k.a. "If we allow you to keep talking, you might prove us wrong"). Or the blocks for being a "troublemaker" (a.k.a. "You just proved us wrong"). Or the blocks for using an IP that's in the same /16 block as a vandal one. And once these basics are out of the way, tell us how you determine that a sock comes from RW and not from 4chan, Ebaumsworld, Uncyclopedia or some other site that initiated vandal rushes. I know for a fact that at least one editor was blocked for being my sock simply because he was using an IP from the same COUNTRY. How do you explain that? Was that also a RW sockpuppet? --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, please no more about socks & blocks at CP. It is not relevant to either this article or this COI discussion. If you want to carry on that debate, do it at CP or RW. Re Nob's comments about COI, this does not look much like assuming good faith. Given the relative obscurity of the subject matter, there are likely to be few editors involved in this article who are not involved in RW in some way, and most, if not all of them, have noted this on their user page, so it is not necessary to declare it repeatedly whenever making an edit. If you think that a conflict of interests has caused NPOV or other WP policies to be breached, please be specific about which edits are problematic. As per WP:COI, a conflict of interests only occurs when users put outside interests above those of WP. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

[Unindent] My COI is declared here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Conservapedia days ago. I am a Sysop on both wikis and will not engage in edit warring in either mainspace. I am asking neutral, non-RationalWiki Admins to oversee RW editors who have shaped content on both entries. Thank you all, very much. nobs (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, the bold instructions on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard say "If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them". Yet you accuse me and then post here like nothing happened, merely kinda-sorta implying that you asked others to oversee "RW editors". Fascinating. --Sid 3050 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What, did you not see my Disclosures at Talk:Conservapedia before engaging in discussion there? Did you not think the same restrictions on my editing the CP entry would not apply to yourself & RW, especiallly over the unresolved issue of the factual accuracy the L.A. Times and Register articles? It is not my job to click on your WP userpage to see if you have a uaserbox link top RW -- expecting me to do so is trolling behavior. You have been properly notified. Thank you. nobs (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is descending further into nonsense. There are no "restrictions" on users of RW or CP editing these WP articles, only on edits which demonstrably violate NPOV policy. If you feel unable to edit these articles neutrally, do not assume that other editors also cannot. Most editors of this article are involved in either RW or CP & if you are interesting in a user's affiliation with either site, checking their user page is a good move. This is not "trolling behaviour" - declaring a COI via user page is really quite standard practice. See WP:COI#Declaring an interest. Your claim that RationalWiki editors have edited this article without declaring a COI, & that it is inappropriate for you to check their user pages, seems undermined by the very fact that you know they are RationalWiki editors. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know this entry was written and shaped by Rationalwiki editors, but readers of the mainspace do not. nobs (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? Mainspace isn't the place to declare COIs. As long as the content is factual, verifiable & NPOV, it is irrelevant who wrote it. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Then rehang the {COI} tag. That should be unproblematic. We have at least three RW editors who have altered significant content in the past 24 hours. nobs (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You dragged this to the COI Noticeboard already, and the result was that one of the uninvolved editors removed the COI template. COI doesn't simply mean that someone from the site edited the article. It means that someone involved in the issue is trying to advance outside interest over Wikipedia's standards. If you think you can make a case for that, then do so. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sid is correct. I am uninvolved, and do not believe that a conflict of interest has been shown on this article. If a specific edit or editor is problematic, please point it out, but do try to be brief. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

Resolved

 – Questional information that appears to be a BLP violation has been removed. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone very quickly lay out the accuracy dispute, stating precisely which statement in the article is false? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the later threads in Talk:Conservapedia. Summary from what I understand (having only entered the debate as a result of a post on WP:NPOVN: The LA Times article claims that Peter Lipson founded the site (along with other former Conservapedia editors). But Peter Lipson himself has apparently denied this (I haven't confirmed this myself, check the Conservapedia thread if you want to confirm). He was an early editor, but that is it. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Lipson is still active at RationalWiki. If the L.A. Times is deemed to be factually in error (unresolved at Talk:Conservapedia), then that whole subsection about RationalWiki may need to be removed cause it would the be without sourcing. Given it's unresolved, RationalWiki editors who have removed the L.A. Times as a source in this article should be cautioned about COI. At a minimum, can we get the {COI} tag rehung on this article as at least three RW editors made significant and major alterations yesterday, removing what as of now are WP:RS. Thank you. nobs (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

But this article doesn't say that Peter Lipson founded the site. So what exactly is disputed? Rees11 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It did until RationalWiki editors removed it. [2] nobs (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This article dosen't state who the founder was/is aside from "RationalWiki was founded in 2007 by former Conservapedia editors." Is the accuracy of that statement disputed? Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, do not direct me to look at another talk page. This talk page is for this article, that talk page is for that article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I found it. The tag was added by ShadowRanger on 23 March, and refers to the claim that Lipson founded the site. See the "Reverted redirect" section above. The claim has since been removed, so I think it's ok to remove the tag. Rees11 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a side note for the logs: From what I see, nobody removed sources since the article was restored. Nobs can supply a diff if he likes, but I didn't see it when I looked through the history. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, RationalWiki editors have removed the L.A. Times as a source for the claim in this article that Peter Lipson founded RationalWiki. Thank you. nobs (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Diff? The LA times source is still there, and to my knowledge wasn't removed. The incorrect claim that Peter Lipson is the founder of RationalWiki has been removed. -- Nx / talk 20:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, [3] The factual accuracy of the L.A. Times and Register is what's in dispute.

Peripherally, should users with COI be allowed to remove WP:RS claims? nobs (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What was removed was the incorrect statement that Lipson founded RW. First, the LA times does not say that Peter Lipson founded RW, it says that Lipson and others founded RW. Second, RW claims that ColinR and Tmtoulouse founded RW [4], and I believe WP:SELFPUB would allow using RW as a source for that statement. -- Nx / talk 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand the question. Either the current article is factually accurate, or it's not. Is it accurate, or is it not, in your opinion? I continue to not-see any users with a COI here - though there are quite a few SPAs and even more TEs. Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the same claims in L.A. Times article is an unresolved issue on another page where neutral editors (non-RationalWiki editors) are involved. A concensus has not been reached.

As to users with COI here, several I believe have stated so already. nobs (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm either not being clear, or you are not listening. Please answer the following question with either a "yes" or a "no."

• Is the article as it is currently written factually accurate, or not?

Thanks. Again, as all uninvolved users have commented, editing a wiki does not create a conflict of interest with respect to that wiki. Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir: The question is in dispute. I make no claims or assumptions to know the answer to that question. I came here to discuss the merits of the issue, not to be insulted. Thank you. nobs (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not being clear. Unless someone actually disputes the accuracy of the article, it's not disputed. Since you don't dispute anything, I don't see a dispute. Marking as resolved. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

PROD

Ok I've WP:PRODded this, there's no way to confer notability or find a valid redirect target. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It should redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki. Until such time as the site becomes notable enough for it's own WP article, that section is the only coverage of RW. How is that invalid? ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing like a PROD case. Deletion of this would emphatically not be "uncontroversial" or "incontestable", & the article/redirected has already been deleted/undeleted several times. If you think there are reasons for deletion, discuss it here, then go to AFD if there's no consensus. Personally, I can't see any sound reason why wholesale deletion would be preferable to keeping a redirect present. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

the argument is that RW shouldn't redirect to CP as RW is not all about CP. The lack of other articles mentiong RW simply underlines the non- notability. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But there is an article section about RW. Until there can be a full article, that would seem the most logical target for a redirect. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a redirect at all. If there is no redirect, then a WP search for RationalWiki will come up empty, with a list of other articles that mention RationalWiki. And Conservapedia will almost certainly be at the top of that list. Sort of like this: [5]. So I would go with no redirect, but I guess I don't feel all that strongly about it. Rees11 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

More like this. Conservapedia, Jack Chick, and goat's head soup. So anyway, the point of having a redirect is to direct the reader to the most relevant content, in fact the only content about RationalWik. + Without it, editors who are looking for content about RationalWiki may just create a new article here when they find there is no such page. Then it will be nominated for deletion, we go through this discussion again, delete it again, etc. Much better to keep the redirect flying. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pages can be locked from re-creation, although nobody at the AfD is suggesting this - probably wisely, as RW might just gain clear notability some time. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic trolling

A pathetic article with a pathetic focus. How pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.196.135 (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to express an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki. Rees11 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

The factual accuracy of this article is in dispute; and removal of the {COI} tag likewise is in dispute. Thank you. nobs (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is not a conflict of interest to edit a wiki. You have asked about this at COIN - all uninvolved participants were quite clear. There is no dispute about the accuracy of the article - you will not state that you find it to currently be innacurate, so there's no one to fix the dispute with. Hipocrite (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Significant changes have been made to a WP:RS claim about the founder of RW. Another WP:RS point blank say Lipson is the founder. We need neutral editors to determine the factual accuracy of those two reliable sources. A concensus among RationalWiki editors about the factual accuracy of those two WP:RS may have occurred, but that may not fit WP standards. nobs (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you dragged me to the COI Noticeboard for my edit to the History section, and people there said it was okay. Let it go.

*sigh* Here we go again.

• LA Times: "Lipson and several other editors [...] started their own website"
• Lipson himself: "Contrary to popular belief, I am neither the father nor midwife of RW." (part of this statement links to the Register article, see below)
• RW History entry: "RationalWiki 1.0, or RW 1.0, was founded by ColinR in February 2007"
• Wikipedia's article on CP: "Several editors, including Lipson, started another website" (reference: LA Times)
• Wikipedia's article on RW: "RationalWiki was founded in 2007 by former Conservapedia editors. The LA Times recounts what made one of the early members become a part of the site: Peter Lipson"

The only source that directly credits Lipson as the founder is the Register article ("Lipson duly enlisted other disgruntled editors and started RationalWiki"). However, this article merely paraphrases the LA Times (which is quoted directly before the quote I gave) and stepped into territory where it contradicts what everybody else says.

The LA Times article seems to be poorly worded, but isn't wrong: Lipson was one of the first-generation members (just like me), if I recall correctly, so he (and I) "started" the site in the beginning, but that doesn't make him (or me) the founder. --Sid 3050 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The only source cited in this article' is the LA Times article, & I cannot find that other sources have been removed. As I understand it, the statement that Lipson founded the site was removed or rephrased because it was not supported by the source, not because of any issue over the accuracy of the source. Investigating the factual accuracy of the LA Times is OR & not Wikipedia's business. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobs, you can't add a "factual accuracy" tag to the article without telling us exactly which fact you dispute. Otherwise there is no way to fix it. Give us an exact quote from the article, and tell us why you question its accuracy. Rees11 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is frustrating to me. I have been on RW since before it went public, and I know/remember the whole story. But that's OR. Simply put: RW was founded by user:tmtoulouse who uses the same name everywhere, and the mysterious ColinR, who vanished soon after. RW 1.0 was a place to bitch about CP and not much else, oh, and vandalize each others' user pages and other silly wiki playing. When CP blocked all of us (the 20-30 original members), Trent decided to restart the wiki as a meaningful project, hence RW 2.0 - the one with the "mission statement" (May 2007). If any journalist wants to contact me and quote me, then we'll finally have something useful to work with. Until then, let's just make this a redirect to something - anything? Empiricism? Rationalism? Enlightenment? Anything would be better than conservapedia. Huw Powell (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to express an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki. Rees11 (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I just did. Huw Powell (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's become very difficult to address issues with the bullying and intimidation I've endured over simply attempting to hang {COI} tags or {actual acciracy} tags. Those issuse must be addressed now before we proceed, I think. nobs (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that you are trying to hang tags over issues, it's that you are using them as red letters based on vague claims. Be specific, and come up with a RS that accurately conveys the information you want. Even the wording of the tertiary source you have is consistent with lipston not being the founder but simply being a member who recruited others. You don't have evidence, all you have is your own COI. --EmersonWhite (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So a concensus of RationalWiki editors can decide what the factual accuracy of a WP:RS is? This same concensus of RationalWIki editors can decide RationalWiki is non-notable. This same concensus of RaionalWiki editors can decide RationalWiki is notable enough to warrant it's own subheading in Conservapedia article. And these same editors can interfere with my Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Defending_interests of an organization. This is all very interesting. nobs (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• The consensus of people who were there is probably enough to say that your interpretation of the RS is wrong. Anyone can look at the relationship between the two articles in question and determine that the claim you want to put in the article is NOT supported by the evidence.
• You should read the things you link to on WP, especially this

  "On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia."

• You keep refusing to be specific about what you want or what source you have for wanting it. When you Defend your interests you still need reliable sources. --EmersonWhite (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

the claim you want to put in the article

Excuswe me? Where did I express what claims I wanted to put into this article? This began as a discussion on another page where neutral admins were engaaged. They have not followed here. I can not discuss the factual accuracy of the same source on two pages simultaneously. nobs (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Pick something you want to change/dispute/whatever, pick a talk page to discuss it on, make a clear proposal saying what you want to change and why. Based on what you are focusing on in this last post, my suggestion would be Talk:CP because you're defending Conservapedia's interests and because that talk page will get more traffic/input. Oh, and because this article will likely soon cease to exist anyway. You can use my last section where I explicitly asked you for input, or you can make your own. --Sid 3050 (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] Fine. We are in agreement on somethings. Can it be reverted to the restored version pof the neutral Admin? If not, can the {COI} tag be rehung. It may survive RFD, and Sid 3050, Tmtlouslouse and myself all agree it should be Deleted and Redirected. Once the {COI} is rehung if the original is not restored, we can return to Talk:Conservapedia and discuss the factual accuracy of the Register and LA Times. nobs (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim you want to put in is that Peter Lipston founded Rational Wiki. A claim that is false. If you look at the top of the discussion here you will notice that you mention a dispute of accuracy, that was the claim being disputed, by you ... --EmersonWhite (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "claim I want to put in;" we need a return to original restored version. nobs (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have found a different way semantically to discuss a change you want made. However that doesn't change the fact that you want that claim that is not in this article to be in the article. --EmersonWhite (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to revert back to an old version that contains a mistake and goes beyond what the source actually states? When you dragged my edit which fixed it to the COI Noticeboard, Hipocrite directly stated: "If the individual denies being the founder of the wiki, we err on the side of caution - per WP:BLP - 'We must get the article right'". And the people on the COI Noticeboard did not share your concerns that we would need the COI tag. You did not show an edit that violated the COI rules in the eyes of the uninvolved editors, so why exactly should we hang the tag? --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The factual accurracy of the LA Times should be decided at Talk:Conservapedia were neutral Admins are engaged and we can get a more balanced concensus. That was the purpose of asking for third party intervention before commenting on either talk page. Both User:Sid 3050 and User:Tmtlouslouse have been editing these entries, Conservapedia and RationalWiki since both articles were created, and these questions of factual accurracy have remained for years. nobs (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what statement you feel to be inaccurate in the LA times article. And please do so on the conservapedia talk page. --EmersonWhite (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we revert to the restored version or rehang the tag? If this article is deleted, it should preserved as the original version. This is a simple matter of WP:CIVIL. nobs (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Split for editing ease

(undent) WHY do you want the tag hung, SPECIFICALLY. WHY do you want it restored to its original state SPECIFICALLY. What SPECIFIC issues do you find objectionable? --EmersonWhite (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobs, right now, the CP and RW entry at least say the same, basically. That is a pretty good basis to start a discussion about the source used in both articles, I'd say. You insist on changing it solely because this was what ShadowRanger initially decided (which was simply to switch back to the last largest version available). This is not static Word Of God. That version simply offered more than a simple stub. You dragged me to the COI Noticeboard for my edit, and the people there told you that BLP applies (Lipson explicitly denies what you want the article to read) and that being a member of the site in question doesn't automatically violate COI rules. The people from the COI Noticeboard asked you to show a diff that breaks the rules, and you failed to do so. The accuracy question of this article was marked as "Resolved" with the note "Questional information that appears to be a BLP violation has been removed".

But since you wish to enforce your will based on what the neutral editors decided, I will drop a note to ShadowRanger (from the NPOV Noticeboard) and Hipocrite (from the COI Noticeboard). I believe their input might help to resolve this. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the Peter Lipson biographical entry, where WP:BLP would apply? This is a WP:RS issue. Evidently Lipson made a representation to Stephanie Simon that he was a, or the, founder of RW, a representation he allegedly now denies or has modified (source?). But that is not the issue under discussion. The issue is the incivility accorded an editor hanging a {COI} coupled with a steamrolled concensus of RationalWiki editors denying the factual accuracy of a WP:RS. It's a simple matter, revert to the restored version or rehang the {COI} tag? Why all this bullying? nobs (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why all this bullying WP:POTKETTLE Have you bothered to read BLP? Had you you would know that BLP applies to "material about living persons" I did not get that impression from reading the Simon article, please quote the specific language that leads you to that position. I'd like to also note that not one but two neutral admins have weighed in on this and they both say that the references don't support the claim that PL is a founder. We have been more than fair regarding your campaign to hang a red letter over this article. --EmersonWhite (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobs, you are directly trying to override the COI Noticeboard decision you requested. There is no COI here, there is a BLP issue, I repeatedly tried to show this to you on various places, and yet you still want to force your will. I'm done here. You have pestered me for several days on- and off-wiki for no good reason and without making any effort to discuss content. I repeatedly tried to discuss content with you, but to no avail. If you want to discuss content, there are by now explicit invitations by me and Tmtoulouse on Talk:Conservapedia where all of this originated. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My edits aren't the Word of God? Well, shucks! —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not the static Word of God. :-P --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

More seriously, nobs, you need to provide some input beyond "it should be the way it was originally." If the sources don't support the text, and it relates to facts about a living person, we *cannot* keep it. A more generally phrased statement that *is* verifiable can be used, but we can't use information that is wrong or unverifiable because "that's how it was." There is clearly no conflict of interest here; at best there is a minor factual dispute, and in general, we resolve those in favor of verifiable information if possible, and nothing at all if verifiable information does not exist. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not reverting the article to a version that violates BLP. I do not see any conflicts of interest here. Move on, please. Hipocrite (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability

You may want to create a separate article for RationalWiki. According to Alexa, its traffic ranking actually exceeds that of Conservapedia. It has since become an important reference for laymen and is an important aspect of the skeptics' community.--68.96.52.71 (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability - unless there are new Reliable Sources writing about RationalWiki (especially articles about the site), its notability (by Wikipedia's standards) doesn't change. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

a shame. If it helps, PZ Myers has been known to cite it.--68.96.52.71 (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look at Alexa and RationalWiki barely registers compared to Conservapedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)