Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Alternative views: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:26, 13 November 2007 editMeco (talk | contribs)53,690 edits Related?: Of course they are related← Previous edit Revision as of 12:38, 13 November 2007 edit undoNorthmeister (talk | contribs)3,786 edits Related?: revisedNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 68: Line 68:


:They are clearly related, asserting otherwise is mere sophistry. __] 12:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC) :They are clearly related, asserting otherwise is mere sophistry. __] 12:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

::How so? I see contradictions and conflicting points of view. (Although, if members of this project wish to restore the linkage, it is their project and they have a right to do so. My wish is to inform members of this project, of a recent addition to related, from a conflicting project with very different goals.) --] 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:38, 13 November 2007

Retrocausality AfD

Retrocausality is up for deletion here. Tim Smith 20:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Misplaced Pages Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Electric universe (concept) AfD

Electric universe (concept) is up for deletion. Tim Smith 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Smith has an RfC

User:Tim Smith has been the subject of a new User request for comment. --ScienceApologist 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Discussion is ongoing here about whether Christopher Michael Langan's "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" deserves a section in his article. Outside input appreciated! Tim Smith 20:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I propose that we should get Wikiproject userboxes involved to identify users. I also feel that we should expand our project page to make it more like other project pages. (example: related projects section)Lighthead 21:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining and for your input! I've started a "Related projects" section. I wouldn't mind a userbox, and an image on the project page would be nice. Do you have ideas for these? Tim Smith 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Photon Belt

I have proposed a deletion review of The Photon Belt if anyone wants to contribute their comments about it. -Eep² 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Con AfD

Conspiracy Con has been nominated for deletion--even after extensive sourcing. Please give your comments/vote. Thanks. -Eερ² 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New thing

Hi guys. I just wanted you to know I began a page today of interest to your project: Category:Alternative Views articles needing expert attention. This is part of the expert finding process. Goldenrowley 04:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment department is an essential part of a WikiProject

At least topic-oriented WikiProjects such as this one (and most all others as well). It is a well-proven mechanism for recruitment to the project, and it provides a central focus helping us to identify where specific work is needed. The basic form of an assessment department rates articles by quality (from Stub to Featured Article). Many WikiProjects also include an importance (or priority) scale. More advanced features such as requests for peer-review, photo, infobox and alerts for pages in particular need of attention can be added also. For more ideas about how we can shape this project, take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject. I have set up assessment departments for two other WikiProjects (Rave and Alternative medicine), and I will do it here also if this move is approved of. __meco 10:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had similar concerns myself, and have also set up assessments for other projects. The only thing that has to date inhibited me from doing so is not knowing the specific "scope" of this project. In a case like this, where the project's goal is to ensure that what might be called the "minority opinion" gets fairly represented, I have trouble determining exactly which articles should and should not be included. I have a feeling that maybe the best way to go would be to set up a specific list of articles which the members feel are of importance to this project, and then tag them. But I am virtually certain that I as an individual am not qualified to address that sort of matter across the board. Having said that, I might be competent to deal with articles relevant to religion and philosophy. If anyone else could indicate which articles in that, or other fields, they believe require such NPOV representation, I think that would help immeasurably. I've started a page at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles which can be used to indicate which articles are in need of attention by this project. That might be the best way to start. John Carter 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Related?

Goals of Rational Skepticism:

  1. To create new articles relating to science and reason.
  2. To create new Misplaced Pages articles regarding those topics not yet covered by Misplaced Pages, but which are covered by The Skeptic's Dictionary.
  3. To place {Rational Skepticism} tags on articles related to Rational Skepticism, fraudster tags on articles concerning convicted fraudsters, and add to criticisms sections where criticism is due.
  4. To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported.
  5. To improve those articles which need help.
  6. To serve as a nexus and discussion area for editors interested in doing such work.

Goals of Alternative views:

  1. create articles about notable alternative views
  2. work to make existing articles about alternative views factual and neutral
  3. prevent articles about notable alternative views from being deleted
  4. ensure that significant alternative views which are notable in the context of other articles
  5. receive adequate, factual, neutral representation in those articles
  6. assist in the formulation and clarification of policies, guidelines, and other project-space
  7. infrastructure relating to alternative views
  8. provide a support group and help forum for editors who are interested in improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of alternative views, but who may be unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's rules and conventions

I see no relationship between the two, but different goals with very different ideas. Thus I am removing the Rational Skeptics from related. --Northmeister 12:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They are clearly related, asserting otherwise is mere sophistry. __meco 12:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
How so? I see contradictions and conflicting points of view. (Although, if members of this project wish to restore the linkage, it is their project and they have a right to do so. My wish is to inform members of this project, of a recent addition to related, from a conflicting project with very different goals.) --Northmeister 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Alternative views: Difference between revisions Add topic