RRS on the french Wikipedia
Offline I'll translate the English article of the RRS to French. It should take some time, it's my first time editing articles on WP... But it'll be complete eventually. 
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
- Login to post comments
Offline
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
The link to the actual study is non-existent. Can you link me? Further...
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
Controversial articles (especially about the minority) are more likely to have more errors, as in our case.
With wiki it's not as much about errors on our page as it's, the page just doesn't represent us. It's a bullshit page that looks like a Pastors attempt an an unbiased opinion.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Offline Like for example the first sentence is a lie...
The Rational Response Squad, or RRS, is a group of atheists who confront what they consider to be irrational claims made by theists.
We fight irrational claims period.
Here's Kelly this week fighting irrational atheists: http://www.rationalresponders.com/atheist_divisiveness_and_dogmatism
Where is mention of our network of websites?
With all this said, I can say our article is a little more accurate today than it was before.
On Sunday September 16, 2007 Wired reported that "YouTube has banned a group called the Rational Response Squad (RRS) after it complained its videos were being taken down due to spurious DMCA requests from" someone working on behalf of the Creation Science Evangelism ministry.
FALSE. This time it's not wiki's fault. They used a source that didn't have the story right.
In response to the "spurious" copyright claims the RRS has posted a message that it is ready to sue CSE and/or Eric Hovind.[14]
FALSE. Our site says "We're ready to help sue..." We were offering help to others. We have no lawsuit.
External links
The Rational Response Squad Official website
The Blasphemy Challenge
WEAK.
P.S. Try an experiment, see how long it takes a hater to remove us from an external link on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist (which fails to list the top two atheist sites in the world, RDF and RRS)
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient, why doesn`t the RRS write their own wikipedia page, send a copy to dancing so she can translate it into french AND send it to us? That way you have a crew of people who can correct it when a theist attacks it?
That's what I proposed, but I'm dealing with my sucky attitude right now.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Offline Like for example the first sentence is a lie...
Quote:The Rational Response Squad, or RRS, is a group of atheists who confront what they consider to be irrational claims made by theists.We fight irrational claims period.
Here's Kelly this week fighting irrational atheists: http://www.rationalresponders.com/atheist_divisiveness_and_dogmatism
Big deal ! That dosen't make the article biased. And you do fight the theists more than any other crowd.
Where is mention of our network of websites?
If something is missing. Add it.
Quote:In response to the "spurious" copyright claims the RRS has posted a message that it is ready to sue CSE and/or Eric Hovind.[14]FALSE. Our site says "We're ready to help sue..." We were offering help to others. We have no lawsuit.
Easy fixed. done.
P.S. Try an experiment, see how long it takes a hater to remove us from an external link on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist (which fails to list the top two atheist sites in the world, RDF and RRS)
If you ask me, the atheism article shouldn't have ANY external linx. Exactly as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theism article as no external links. They are concepts that outshines any groups and no one should promote their website onto these articles. So I won't try to add your website, you don't belong there. (you are already listed in the list of atheist groups in the see also section).
Seriously, if you're interested in translating the article, why not just take my advice and wait til we actually think the article represents us? That's what I was proposing.
You haven't exactly said it like that, but yeah sure, I'll wait. But for what ? A few links here and there to be added and 2 or 3 words to be changed ? Cause what seems to trouble you in the article seems to be details to me.
You're letting your emotions to my emotions cloud your emotions.
Yeah, well... I'm an impulsive bitch, get use to it !
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
- Login to post comments
Offline You REALLLY like wikipedia, eh?
I honestly believe that the world would be smarter and the internet would be better if it had never existed. Sorry.
Yup I do REALLLY like it, as I said earlier, I think it's a very nice and construtive project. Free knowledge is something that I value. Sorry !
And you are right, wiki is not a source of reference but it is still very good. If somebody use it and take every thing that is written in there to be the absolute truth, then he's an idiot ! Not wiki's fault, it's written in their slogan "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." If that dosen't ring a bell !
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll translate the English article of the RRS to French. It should take some time, it's my first time editing articles on WP... But it'll be complete eventually. :D
Are we reading the same article? I see...
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist Americans who oppose what they consider to be irrational claims made by theists. The founders of the group are Brian Sapient and Rook Hawkins.
Along with film director Brian Flemming, The Rational Response Squad oversaw a controversial project on YouTube - the Blasphemy Challenge - that asked people to make a short video in which they denied the Holy Spirit.
and that's all I see. (translated by me)
- Login to post comments
Offline Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:I'll translate the English article of the RRS to French. It should take some time, it's my first time editing articles on WP... But it'll be complete eventually. :DAre we reading the same article? I see...
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist Americans who oppose what they consider to be irrational claims made by theists. The founders of the group are Brian Sapient and Rook Hawkins.
Along with film director Brian Flemming, The Rational Response Squad oversaw a controversial project on YouTube - the Blasphemy Challenge - that asked people to make a short video in which they denied the Holy Spirit.
and that's all I see. (translated by me)
We were talking about the english article.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
- Login to post comments
Offline We were talking about the english article.
Wow. That article really sucks. No wonder Sapient is in a bad mood.
- Login to post comments
Offline lol
I'm not giving a shit anymore anyways.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:Like for example the first sentence is a lie...
Quote:The Rational Response Squad, or RRS, is a group of atheists who confront what they consider to be irrational claims made by theists.We fight irrational claims period.
Here's Kelly this week fighting irrational atheists: http://www.rationalresponders.com/atheist_divisiveness_and_dogmatism
Big deal ! That dosen't make the article biased. And you do fight the theists more than any other crowd.
It makes the entry false. I presume with reasonable expectation that it is false due to bias, but I was speaking to it's innacuracy.
Agreed we fight theism more than anything, however the statement is a misrepresentation of who we are. It diminishes what we claim to be trying to do.
Quote:Where is mention of our network of websites?
If something is missing. Add it.
It was actually part of our original entry in wiki, but it was removed due to the claim that the page was "promotional."
Meanwhile, it was a factual representation of what we are and what we do. Development of other websites and atheist leaders is about 30% of what we do.
Quote:Quote:In response to the "spurious" copyright claims the RRS has posted a message that it is ready to sue CSE and/or Eric Hovind.[14]FALSE. Our site says "We're ready to help sue..." We were offering help to others. We have no lawsuit.
Easy fixed. done.
Thanks, wonder if someone will remove it due to a bad source or something.
Quote:P.S. Try an experiment, see how long it takes a hater to remove us from an external link on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist (which fails to list the top two atheist sites in the world, RDF and RRS)
If you ask me, the atheism article shouldn't have ANY external linx. Exactly as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theism article as no external links. They are concepts that outshines any groups and no one should promote their website onto these articles. So I won't try to add your website, you don't belong there. (you are already listed in the list of atheist groups in the see also section).
I agree the article could be written without external links, but since they're there doesn't it seem natural that the most popular atheist sites in the world are listed?
Quote:Seriously, if you're interested in translating the article, why not just take my advice and wait til we actually think the article represents us? That's what I was proposing.
You haven't exactly said it like that, but yeah sure, I'll wait. But for what ? A few links here and there to be added and 2 or 3 words to be changed ? Cause what seems to trouble you in the article seems to be details to me.
The article, overall trivializes what we are about. It breaks us down not as to what we are about and what we are trying to accomplish like other wiki articles, it seems
to speak more about three big things we've accomplished. We've accomplished dozens and dozens of big things. I think an encyclopedia entry should speak to what
we are trying to accomplish, who we are, maybe our irrational precepts, and not just about BlasChal/Hovind/Comfort.
Quote:You're letting your emotions to my emotions cloud your emotions.Yeah, well... I'm an impulsive bitch, get use to it !
Just don't be mad at me that I severely dislike a site you happen to like. I'm not attacking you, i'm attacking wiki... I like YOU and YOUR desire to help.
Sorry if any of this appeared to be an attack on you... it's not. I can easily seperate the two.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Offline I agree that Wikipedia is all but worthless. Since anyone can edit it, the facts are pretty much out the window.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline I agree that Wikipedia is all but worthless. Since anyone can edit it, the facts are pretty much out the window.
Sometimes, yes.
However Wikipedia acts like the human body in one type of analogy. There are a lot of "geeks" that have certain entries that they have invested a lot of time in and jealously guard over it.
If someone starts throwing garbage into it, they go on the attack to remove it just like white blood cells in a human body attacking a virus. A lot of articles have very long debates in the discussion page of several interested contributers hashing out what should actually be done with the article. Gets ugly sometimes but, for the most part, it works.
I agree that any article that promotes anti-religion though is going to have a much more difficult time in a wiki.
I have one article that I guard very jealously on Wikipedia. If anyone jacks with it then I attack, revert changes, and comment on what issue I had with the alteration.
And that one single article I have learned the true and accurate facts to the utmost of my ability. However I am always open to countering views considering they can provide evidence to support their views.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
- Login to post comments
Offline Just don't be mad at me that I severely dislike a site you happen to like. I'm not attacking you, i'm attacking wiki... I like YOU and YOUR desire to help.
Sorry if any of this appeared to be an attack on you... it's not. I can easily seperate the two.
Don't worry, I'm (like you apparently) impulsive and say what I think all the time. I think that your reaction sucked and that you despise this site for more personal reasons than for objective reasons, but you have every right to think what you think.
And no I didn't perceive it as an attack on me. As I said, I like what you guys are up to here and just because I'm arguing with you doesn't mean I don't like you.
So don't think that I was attacking you either.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
- Login to post comments
Thanks,
While we're at it, can you translate the article so that it starts to actually represent what we do and who we are?
I don't like wikipedia, it's article sucks, the site sucks, it like IPOD are two inventions that have helped take us backwards in the last 5 years.
Before you waste a second of your life translating that piece of shit article, we should work towards creating a wiki page on our own site.
Once we create an article and source it we can show it to the wikipedia editors that will then hopefully remove their heads out of their collective majority Christian ass, and ask them to make our article reflect our group in an unbiased manner, instead of their dumbtwit perspective. After that, I'd love it if you translated the article!
edit in: I saw the post you made on french wiki. I'd love it if you stopped translating there, it's all downhill from where you stopped.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I've edited a couple of Wikipedia articles, Sapient.
Would you like me to fix the RRS article?
[EDIT]Actually I just read through the Discussion page on that article and it looks like there are already some RRS people trying to keep that article truthful.
Looks like a shitstorm going on. I think Wikipedia may be a lost cause. [/EDIT]
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
yeah the wikipedia article author seems to indirectly attack and belittle Brian and the RRS in the first couple of sentences. This should definitely be re-done.
Your god's silence speaks loud and clear
lol
What the hell are you talking about ?
There's no such thing as a wikipedia editor. The public are the editors, if you think the article sucks, it's your fault !
If you think that the article is biase say why it is in the discussion page and find a way to make it accurate and unbiased.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
These "Christians" have a huge Atheist Portal in french.
I like the quote they have on the page to :
Et si Dieu existait, il faudrait s’en débarrasser ! And if God existed, we should get rid of Him!Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
Actually I was thinking on this point after I made my original post about "fixing" the wikipedia article on RRS.
I'm biased in favor of RRS. So I can't in good conscience influence how it is written.
So Sapient definetely can't edit an article talking about RRS. He's even more biased than I would be in that article.
So no, it's not his fault that the article sucks.
We just have to watch it being biasedly opposed against RRS by religious people being unethical and spouting propaganda against RRS on wikipedia.
Fuck 'em. I refuse to stoop to their level. Any idiot willing to believe that shit in that article is stupid enough that there is no reason why we should try to reason with them.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
What ???
You have to be kidding me !
You are saying "We are to fucking stupid to be able to write a neutral article about the RRS !"
Being neutral and objective is easy !
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
I don't equate intelligence with bias.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
What is so biased about the article anyways ? I just read it again, and I don't really see anything SO terrible and jesusfreaky about it.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
I take offense at that line, which is in the very second sentence of the article.
Brian is not using an alias out of fear. He is taking the proper precautions in response to emotionally charged threats on his life by religious people.
A more neutral edit would say something along the lines of (Sapient is an alias he uses due to threats on his life by unknown individuals).
The use of the phrase "due to fear" is belittling and pisses me off personally.
Do I lock my doors at night due to "fear"? No. I lock my doors at night because there are some crazy fucktards out there that would harm my children, my wife, and myself for idiotic and self-serving reasons.
I don't look both ways before I cross a street out of fear. I do it because it is stupid to walk into traffic without knowing whether you would be hit by a car or not.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I read through the entire article, and it seems just fine to me. It may not be the most lucidly-written article in the world, but it gets the point across adequately and certainly doesn't seem diminutive or biased in any way.
If the "Sapient is an alias he uses due to fear of reprisals" bit is all you're worried about, then I'd say that's a fairly decent article, especially given the nature of wikipedia.
I've replaced the phrase "Sapient is an alias he uses due to fear of reprisals" with the one you just wrote Watcher. Let's see if it stays there.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
So he isn't "afraid" that someone will actually kill him, yet he nonetheless takes precaution? What exactly is it that drives someone to take precautions?
I'm really not trying to be an ass tonight, I'm just trying to find a point of view here.
I have to agree with you jmm, I didn't find that sentenced really biased either. But anyways I've changed it to (Sapient is an alias he uses for safety reasons) as the abc article tells it.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
I mean, there's no doubt that "for safety reasons" reads much better than "for fear of reprisal". I just don't understand Watcher's contention with that line as being somehow diminutive, as well as Brian's general distaste for the article as a whole.
Can you tell were you see that ?
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
"afraid" or "fear" is an emotion. A very valuable emotion as well. To say you have "no fear" I think means you are severely lacking in the mental tools for survival. However, you can take precautions on intellectual grounds that have nothing to do with emotions.
Of course I think Brian has emotional reasons to take precautions not to die. So do I. So have you so far most likely.
However the emotional reason for taking precautions against one's death is not only married to emotion. There can be many intellectual reasons for prolonging one's existence. I'm sure there have been many humans who emotionally wanted to die but intellectually prolonged their life over love of a relative or some type of job/duty they were trying to help.
I could think of all the problems in my life and emotionally realize that I could remove all of them with a bullet through my brain. However, I am a father. Moreso I want my family (wife and children) to respect my memory if they survive me and think good of me. Therefore, intellectually, I choose to take the more difficult road. To live, and help their lives to be better by living. Even if the easy way out for myself (I.E. Selfish way) is a quick bullet to the head.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Explain to me how one can take precaution on strictly intellectual grounds. How is the love of a relative strictly intellectual? It seems as though all such decisions are a combination of emotion and intellect.
I agree again with you.
And Brian, saying that Wikipedia is the #1 source of evil in this universe is completely stupid if you ask me. I think it is a wonderful collective project that values free and neutral knowledge. Of course it's not perfect but it is of, surprisingly, good quality considering it's openness.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
The majority of the public is theistic. Democracy is 3 young earth creationists and a biologist voting on what to teach in a science class.
I'm too busy to give a shit about fixing our article on that piece of shit site or to recount how much bullshit has occured on there, however if the forum would like to try and hone it in this thread, I'll lend constructive advice.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Agreed, which is why I didn't say that.
I think it's a detriment to society that a site ridden with so many errors (especially as it pertains to controversial issues) comes up so prominently in google searches.
I will say that wiki is an ok start in someones research of something online. But that's it... just a start. Is it still an average of 4 errors per page?
Semi related side article: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/news_activism/5300
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Wikipedia is not a democracy by the way but anyways, let me not give a shit either ! I don't feel like doing it anymore. Your attitude fucking sucks !
Don't get me wrong, I really like what you are doing here, which is why I thought it would be a good thing that you guys could be accessible elsewhere than just in the English world. But fuck it, I'll leave it other people.
In America maybe but the world is not American by the way.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
Right, and I don't hate religion. Our particular article has had it's ass beaten by the theistic majority over and over, and was once removed by said majority due to lack of relevance, only after we had several hundred people vote (all from different IP's) that we were relevant. The mod then deleted almost all of the votes and dishonestly asserted they were all the same person. It was only after our vote was 300 in favor to keep our article up and about 20 nays that we were removed. Also the article was removed well before the vote was supposed to be over. In other words theist mods had a hard on, and did whatever they could to pull it, even lying and cheating. I care not to follow anything on wiki since that day (there's articles on the site about the controversy here somewhere). If that's how they treated our article when it was important and being viewed through a microscope, who knows what the hell could happen at the minor edit level.
You REALLLY like wikipedia, eh?
I honestly believe that the world would be smarter and the internet would be better if it had never existed. Sorry.
You're letting your emotions to my emotions cloud your emotions. :P
Seriously, if you're interested in translating the article, why not just take my advice and wait til we actually think the article represents us? That's what I was proposing.
In America maybe but the world is not American by the way.
Ok, first of all the majority of the WORLD is theistic. And secondly, democracy doesn't change when you leave America... it's still democracy.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.