Talk:EvoWiki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
from VfD:
This site looks interesting, but doesn't seem to be notable enough to deserve an article. For a very rough idea, Alexa puts it at 2,644,510. -- WOT 04:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. Article does not give evidence of notability. I give wikis and reference sites a lot of slack on their Alexa ratings, but I need to see some evidence of notability. Very open to keeping if this is improved by the deadline, but otherwise I don't object to a deletion. -- Jmabel 06:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- I've added stats to the article. --Steinsky 15:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: It's the 30th largest Wiki community (actually, it's probably higher than that now): http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?BiggestWiki#Biggest_wikis_by_page_count_on_July_3_2004 . Also, about 13 WP pages link there (because of external links / List of wiki etc) --Steinsky 07:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'll say keep - it's a significant wiki and is unique and of general interest - TB 10:40, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
- 2.6 million Alexa ranking = not notable. If this were a fan page or a webcomic, there wouldn't be any debate; why should a wiki get better treatment? Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:16, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, although cool. --Improv 18:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Number of google or alexa hits should not be relevant. We are not an encylopedia of what is popular. Intrigue 17:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Cabalamat 21:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - SimonP 06:56, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a large-ish wiki. EvoWiki is frequently referenced in the creationism/evolution debate, which is a significant part of current culture. I removed bits of the comparison of EvoWiki, CreationWiki, and Wikipedia insofar as the comparison was not relevant to the debate. gabby 08:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Contents |
[edit] It's a trap!!!"
My experience in evowiki is that it is full of creationists that use circular logic. Its front page fratures articles full of creatrionist claims that strickly deny comon sense and neutral points of view to support crationist bias. I tried comon sense there and it got deleted and threatened like vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ollj (talk • contribs).
- The creationist claims section is for refutations of creationist claims. Are you sure you were reading the pages carefully? Joe D (t) 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly how do you expect the writers of EvoWiki to refuse creationist claims if they are not allowed to repeat them specifically for the purpose of refuting them?--Mr Fink 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Evowiki's move
Why did Evowiki move back to their original address? PrometheusX303 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Observation from a free-speaking True rationalist
My apologies in advance for the long content... Delete it if necessary.
The overall tone of the article in EvoWiki on 'What Creationism Is' is that of an egotistical subversion of one religion for another. There are just as many flaws and perversions of what this article is afraid to clump into the definitive label of 'Science' as there are in what it easily dismisses as 'Creationism'. There are theories, proven with the same logic and indeed even more firmly-rooted evidence, just as Evolution claims to support the weight of so many irrational theories, to support even the now radical idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Most of these Creationist theories arise from the flaw of Evolutionists in studying a prehistoric era in the context of today's laws of geologic and atmospheric nature. Also, on the same token, how can we look at the percent error of those who came before us in the past, and use their logic, the same logic that created racism (the seed of which was born in evolutionary ideas, which only now Science is conveniently proving wrong), without seeing the even greater consequences of using them in a world where people after people are alienated by it.
I remind those of you who support this inverted pyramid of increasingly dangerous size that one can only spin such a top-heavy object for so long. I am not discounting all of scientific discovery, the greatest of which seem to have happened on accident rather than on conscious study of fundamental principles. Merely I am stating that to write such an article or even a new evolutionary theory, and to continue this tradition as if each individual scientist had discovered evolution on his or her own when they have only studied material which may or may not have been accurate to them, is being less than obverse towards it. Evolution, Creation, even the Hindu ideas of Samsara and Moksha, cannot be fully discredited or given credit, for they exist precisely because of our lack in understanding, in a world that is completely indifferent to them. To the reader I say that the person who believes others' principles simply on the basis that those principles cling to the rest of established Science, believes those principles for the wrong reason. From where I'm sitting, this is only a battle between two equals, with no discernable victor, one which relies on faith and one which relies on evidence from a world that no longer exists; a battle which fosters only hatred and misunderstanding, two important things which both the scientist and the religious extremist have simply and irreverently set aside to be dealt with later. Now is the time to step back and look at ourselves deeply and consciously. Where has scientific discovery taken us, and where do we want to be? Enough of the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.78.19.102 (talk • contribs).
- If you have any concrete complaints or suggestions for the article I would suggest you make them. Otherwise please do not clutter up wikipedia's talk pages with irrelevent discussion. Barnaby dawson 12:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Again, I see this human need for the concrete. Yet we seldom prove things in the fashion we set out to look for them, do we? Where does the need come from, though, please enlighten me? I'll give you want you want for now and say as 'concretely' as I can: If the articles can't come up with any 'concrete' arguments against Creation (and not merely in favor of Evolution), instead of merely slandering the religious and the way they think 'supposedly', I see no objectivity in them or the debate about Evolution. There is none anyway, of course, so I'd just be polite and point that out for you. Phew! Enough of that concrete stuff, it's starting to weigh me down!
- So further, if you get rid of the article above, I think it'd be getting rid of the least of what's wrong with this page... Evolution uses evidence that could mean a million different things, but we see it as evidence pointing to a nice, neat progression of this planet's species. How convenient! lol Maybe it's correct, maybe not, but if you look for lies long enough, they can be found, sure enough as truth can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.166.28 (talk • contribs).
- What on earth is this guy talking about? The article this discussion refers to does not talk about the relative merits of evolution versus creationism, it talks about a website that talks about it. And in balance, it also talks about a website talking an opposite point of view - namely the CreationWiki site. Sheesh, this discussion is certainly not the place to try convincing people about ones convictions when the the Wikipedia entry this discussion relates to does not even entertain such questions! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.173.32.163 (talk • contribs).
[edit] cleanup
I find it quite interesting that the CreationWiki article was deleted, but it is allowed to be talked about here. So it can be mentioned as long as it's mentioned only on a page covering a pro-evolution topic? Anyways, besides that, this article just isn't that great. I'll make a few minor changes and see what you guys think. --64.22.206.248 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
