WikiSynergy talk:WikiSynergy in a nutshell

Just out of curiosity... frontier ideas; frontier ideas. Wondering if they are defined is all. Human 05:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I have not been able to come up with a definition, though others have asked the same question. They are frontier so how could they be defined beforehand? I think it generally corresponds to what you term woo, but we're not going to act like the issue is decided from the start (by using such terms). P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 06:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if specific examples are not known, it does not mean the general classification of the idea can not be defined, or at least explored. For example, what is more important that the idea push the boundaries of human experience and understanding, or that the idea has been rejected by established scientific communities? Can a commonly accepted idea be on the frontier? The concept of non-locality is far more mind warping than telekinesis. One has an established scientific explanation backed by solid evidence and is widely accepted. The other...well not so much. Are both "frontier ideas"? Etaroced 06:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remember that one if I write an article on "extraordinary claims." WS is made very broad. For example, the idea of God would work. WS is meant to be about all the interfaces between the known and the unknown, or the believed and the real. We could deal with Conservapedia just as much as it looks like Rationalwiki does, though in a very different way. But just where one would draw the line, I am not sure. This is as near as I have come.

"We deal with all things which are frontier, but there should also be an element of the unusual and unaccepted. We do not generally cover such topics as the following, except as they relate directly to other issues."

But we might cover some types of environmentalism, like the global warming debate. Or even the world trade center. But if you really want a policy, it is this: I am not inclined to reject content (but can't speak for all of us), and if the thing is controversial it is likely to be accepted. But at the same time, I do not think it would be appropriate to allow "debates" about which online game is better. See if you can come up with something better than that? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 06:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I should make Rationalwiki editors aware of this thread if they do not already know. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 07:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How it works

Ah. Ok. That seems to be clearer. I think that a definition of "frontier topic" might still be in order though.

On a more technical point, how would two articles with the same subject name work? Different namespaces? One page divided into two sections ( bad idea)? Or two (or more) articles one (for example) "How the moon landing was faked" and another "How the moon landing was faked - Sceptical?--Bob M 10:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The latter - simple title belongs to first proponent POV, all subsequent get extended titles, all should link to each other at the top. Glad I made things clearer for you, it took me a few weeks to figure this out! Human 21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I must admit that it's the first time that I've understood it.

Now I'm wondering about multiple frontier POV's though. Take the Moon landing one - though I don't know if it's "frontier" - as an example. There are a whole range different conflicting conspiracy theories. That NASA never sent men into space; that they only went into Earth orbit; that they only orbited the Moon; that they faked the landing but did go later; that they did go but covered up evidence of alien civilisations. Against these there is only one sceptical viewpoint - that the evidence is that they went and that the story, as reported, is true. In such a case would there then be multiple "frontier" articles and one refutation? Or would all the "frontier" opinions go into one article with different sections?--Bob M 21:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say "it depends", probably will vary from topic to topic. As PS says, in some cases a topic might just have a "criticism" section. But to explain better what I mean, let's say a proponent turns up and writes a 64k article on telekinesis, much of which goes into great detail on their theories and research. If there is no TK article, they get the "bare" title (although a better approach might be for the bare title just to describe it briefly). If another researcher turns up and has a different "article" to present, reporting on their work and ideas, they'd probably write a new article. As far as skeptical articles at that point, the skeptics might put all their stuff into one article, or perhaps write separate refutations of "TK according to A" and "TK according to B". Most of this really depends on how much material develops on a given topic. EVP, for instance, I think has two very long articles already, which IIRC are from fairly specific perspectives. Human 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Put this on the main page, or a form of it, please

I think if you did that, it would make the purpose of WikiSynergy more clear up front! Don't just put a link, put the text! Sterile 14:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree for multiple reasons.--Bob M 16:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's already the second link after How to use a wiki. People just are not reading. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Want me to try to write an abbreviated version of it for the main page? I think S & B do have a point to an extent. By the way, has it occurred to anyone else how funny this article's title is? Human 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We could just put the bullet points in a java box, and then have a link to the "How it works" section after that? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 21:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We could just put the bullet points in a java box, and then have a link to the "How it works" section after that? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 21:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How WikiSynergy Works

Here's what WikiSynergy is about:

• A place to tell the world about frontier ideas and resources.

• A place to explore controversy in a collegial environment.

• A place to meet people who are interested in frontier thought.

• A place to develop frontier ideas to higher levels of understanding.

• A place to document and explain skepticism about frontier ideas, and discuss differences in a collegial atmosphere.

• A place where the best arguments for and against frontier ideas can be gathered.

• A place where those who hold frontier ideas can come for aid when they are under attack.

Read about how it works in practice

That's very good indeed. Human 00:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you transclude the bullets, any improvements or changes will only have to be done in one place... Human 00:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you transclude bullets? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 04:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You can transclude any part (or all) of any page by treating it as a template. If you enter {{WikiSynergy:WikiSynergy in a nutshell}} on a page, the whole of it will occur at that place in the page. There are a few simple tags that can manipulate how much gets transcluded: <noinclude>some stuff</noinclude> prevents "some stuff" from being copied over; <includeonly>other stuff</includeonly> doesn't show up on the "primary" page, but does when the page is transcluded, and I think <onlyinclude>this stuff</onlyinclude> can mark off the part of an article (in this case "this stuff") one wants to use. Noinclude is often used on templates to present instruction, for instance, on the template page. For some reason my nowikis here aren't doing what I expected them to do, just edit to see what I typed and ignore the nowiki tags. If you want I'll edit the box you made above to do what I just described. Human 21:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

PS, you've got an unclosed tag somewhere in "hat/hab" I think. Human 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I never actually thought of doing that with a normal page. Cool. There is a mixup in the templates, hat has to be closed with hab2, which of course one forgets. You can edit the main page now as a sysop. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 03:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I forgot I could do that now. I still wouldn't without asking, though. I'll give it a shot, apologies in advance if I make a mistake along the way. Human 23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, done. Now any changes to the bullets will change what's on the main page. I know it doesn't matter right now, but that means this page should be protected as well, if it isn't cascaded by main's protection. Human 23:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)