Talk:Ship of Fools (website)

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

[Untitled]

I've removed a lot of the self-advertisory text, and the unecessary list of all the discussion boards on the site. Also trimmed down the external links, most of which were different pages on same site. Tpacw (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/sources for the 'criticism' section...

I'm an occasional ship-of-fools poster with no connection to the web site organization, and I have to say that I don't recognize most of the criticisms here.

Rather than deleting the section, I've assumed that there is some basis to it and made the following obvious adjustments to try achieve NPOV, I can't invent references though.

In the recent past, Ship of Fools has come under scrutiny for bias towards the Liberal-Christian agenda, especially in regard to the running and maintenance of the web forums. - Who from? Deleted.

Many members (known as 'shipmates') have been banned or suspended from posting for offences which more 'liberal' members have been able to remain posting for. - Many is a weasel word and unsupported. The rest of the assertion I've tried to rerender in an uncontentious manner.

Many would argue is weasel wording, deleted.

Unitarian a surprising label. My impression is that most of the Christian participants are Trinitarian, although I do get the the impression that there are an above average number of universalists. Deleted.

Failure to donate as ground for banning. I've never been asked for a donation, never donated, and never been banned for not donating. Deleted.

The 'splinter websites' could certainly be linked. I am not aware of their existence until now. I tried searching for them, without success. If references are not added, I suggest this be deleted.

Kevin Cowtan (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the criticism section. I have also cut down some of the other material that focuses on the discussion forum. It would be useful if someone could add decent third party references to the Ship of Fools, e.g., media reports on the website's activities.

If someone wishes to restore the criticism section, then also please provide external third-party links that demonstrate that someone outside the Ship of Fools community has sufficient interest in what goes on in the site's online forum to publish about it. Don't use Wikipedia for your personal crusade: take your problems to the Ship of Fools website's moderators and discuss it with them.

Neil Dodgson (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Pixels page

Forwarded question from the 'Ship of Fools' thread about this page: Is St Pixels notable enough to have its own page, or should it be a section within this page? (I've added the BBC citations concerning St Pixels to this page for the time being). My feeling is that it is notable but there might not be enough to say. Searching for St Pixels already returns the SoF article as the first hit.

Kevin Cowtan (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]