Talk:RationalWiki

		This article was nominated for deletion on February 19, 2014. The result of the discussion was Rewritten; keep.

It's created!

I will start the talk page, to serve as an anchor for the flood of visitors from RationalWiki that I'm sure will be arriving any moment now. Have fun, people! YB ^indeed! 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it.--Stupid cubic cubic - Treason

Careful guys... I know most everyone at RW is a haxxor genious, but over at UP math/computer jokes don't always fly so well. Keep the sattire fairly consistent throughout the article (no over-the-top nonsense) and it should turn out fine. 76.10.154.191 23:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I've changed my mind. We don't need, in my opinion, no stinkin' UP article. --Stupid cubic cubic - Treason

But I need the Google-rank boosting links!!!111 :( 76.10.156.233 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally thought that the linkspam was funny, but whatever. 66.230.84.144 02:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dang! This really took off! I feel very smug. YB ^indeed! 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it out of teh ICU yet?

Eh?-SpeakerForTheGoats 16:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly alot better. The template is a big plus - it's funny and it excuses alot of the articles failings hit-and-miss jokes. Perhaps a little something at the end to balance of the rather conspicuous notes (those there equations need compressin'), but I'm not too worried at this point. After all, Liberapedia got voted for not-deletion, and if they have enough members to undermine democracy, we certainly must! 206.248.133.240 19:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

AWESOME!!!!!!!! !(it is now) 206.248.157.123 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Downtime

Yes, RationalWiki is experiencing extended downtime. Unfortunately, this happened while the admin was on vacation, but it's hoped it will be back up on September 6th or shortly after. [1][2] --Interiot 22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Experience with Rationalwiki

I found the natives #very# unfriendly: and the site has the highest ratio of no-relevant articles of any wiki I have come across. Ganfyd is funnier. So far below the search engine radar it is below mole-vision version. Jackiespeel 15:51, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Still below mole-radar.

'A certain public library' blocks more of RW than Uncyclopedia - which 'proves' UP is better than RW. Jackiespeel 16:31, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

My high school blocked all of Rat-Wiki. 184.7.157.90 04:47, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

I found this site annoyning like hell.More annoyning than conservapedia.That is saying somebody.Can atheist be not annoyning.NIEN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.92.215.95 (talk • contribs)

Uncyclopedia more annoying than Conservapedia? We could use that as a slogan here! --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:31, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

I find poor spelling even more annoyning. Spıke Ѧ 21:49 2-Feb-15

Israel

There should be mention of their coverage of Israel which has in recent times become very negative and their coverage of the likes of Hamas which has become very apologetic at the same time... Don't believe me? Just have a look at their articles on Zionism, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah... Oh and don't forget this turd that has taken over half the Apartheid article. --95.90.213.64 22:50, January 13, 2016 (UTC)

Featured articles are only updated if something important happens (in this case, if the website gets taken down, changed or whatever). Adding a paragraph about that site's attitude to Hamas etc. doesn't warrant a change in my view but that would be up to the original author (check the page's history). --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 23:57, January 13, 2016 (UTC)

I'd discourage such changes even with the cooperation of the featured author. This is a humor wiki, not a soapbox to blog about the unacceptability of some other site's editing. Spıke 🎙️00:01 14-Jan-16

IQs

Despite their logo, most of these people aren't that smart. Although the old guard was mostly professional adults, most of them today are teenagers or college students who can't add "poop" to articles on Wikipedia anymore because they had enough of their shenanigans and blocked every IP address they had access to. Most of the vandals on Wikipedia, surprisingly, seem to be jocks and cheerleaders. So basically, RationalWikians are mostly a bunch of jocks and cheerleaders, which means they are mostly "b average" girls and boys (according to your article on high school students), and based on their actions, most of them are probably not that smart. I realize this is a featured article, so it probably isn't going to be edited, but it'd be funny if the intro was updated to reflect what the user base at Rational-Wiki really is in 2017 and make fun of them appropriately. (Also, how does a satirical article about Rational-Wiki omit the Chicken Coop and all of its drama?) PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:50, October 26, 2017 (UTC)