Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive1

RationalWiki is a controversial wiki. Proxima Centauri 08:16, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

What Conservapedia thinks about RationalWiki
What the writers of this article page tell you is the fact that they were tossed out of Conservapedia for the following: As for RationalWiki, despite what it is said on the main page of that site regarding their own intelligence, is nothing more than a joke. 70.156.10.208 07:37, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Fighting and picking fights;
 * Trying to force a liberal perspective in various articles;
 * Showing outright contempt for the site, conservatism in general, Christianity, and family values;
 * The insertion of objectionable content, such as porn images and links to porn sites;
 * Lying, by either including deliberately false article content, or lying in their own conduct;
 * Vandalism and cyber-terrorist tactics.
 * The intelligence of the contributors to various wikis is not what this article is about. Nor the question of whether some wiki is "a joke". William Ackerman 13:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Someone is jealous. 24.141.169.227 16:20, 20 November 2007 (EST)
 * Okay, taking these in orde:
 * "Picking fights" means "trying to insist on historical fact, not the fevered delusions of beady-eyed fanatics. See the Great "Dawkins is a Professor" Debate.
 * "Liberal Perspective" = "Not as rabidly Liberal-Hating as Andy Schlafly."
 * Outright contempt....well, ya got me there. Conservapedia is downright Stalinist in its adherence to the One True Opinion About Everything, and I have massive contempt for that kind of attitude.
 * "Objectionable content" = Anything Liberal, or that treats S-x as anything less that a Cthulhuesque horror that a wrathful God inflicted upon humanity to PUNISH them. And I don't recall seeing any porn links--got versions to back up that wild accusation?
 * Also, remember that RWers aren't the ONLY people editing CP for the laughs.
 * Anyone who says flat-out that they're a Liberal on CP gets banned. Usually immediately.  So lying (especially about that we think of Andy) is the only way to get anything done.
 * Vandalism is generally destructive acts not fixable with a single mouse-click, so, no.
 * And adding actual, provable facts that happen not to agree with the Schlafly Worldview is only 'vandalism' from within said constricted worldview, but whatever.
 * Cyberterrorism? Is that where we blow up trucks over the Internet?
 * It's a joke you can believe in, though. Fnord.
 * Yes, lil' Debbie got me to register here. Who says nothing good comes of Conservapedia? --Gulik 16:55, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

The "criticism" section
I have taken out the claim First, there was only one cite, not "many users". Second, the article in question was (as so many things on RW are) a "humor" article. People disagree on the construction of humor articles, and so this sort of thing shouldn't be all that surprising. In fact, being a wiki, editorial changes should never be surprising.
 * Many users at RationalWiki will remove factual material, even if backed up by sources ...

The material that was removed was, in fact, an actual article cite to an actual web page, and was therefore "true". However, from looking at what was going on, that material wasn't funny, and wasn't in keeping with the tone of the humor article. The person adding it had legitimate issues with the way various political groups view the Jewish community. Those valid concerns are appropriate for another article. But the reverting person felt that they were turning a humor page into an actual controversy page, which wasn't what the page was supposed to be about.

Before people go looking for other instances of RW people removing "factual material", keep in mind that, on a wiki, people remove stuff, and edit it and move it around, all the time. Including things that are in fact true.

Furthermore, I would guess that the person putting that in, presumably Deborah, feels that RW people are removing factual material from Conservapedia. That is a valid criticism, and vandalism of CP is discussed in the "criticism" section. William Ackerman 13:42, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Anyone care to substantiate any of the criticisms in that section? 24.36.227.74 21:55, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Gibberish
The source for the “Gibberish” is likely to be editors of Conservapedia. Conservapedia has a reputation for being biased and inaccurate. Proxima Centauri 00:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Hell!
Even the criticism section of this wiki is just a rant against Conservapedia! Dont like Conservapedia? Fine! Just ignore it! Get a life! Come on!Eros of Fire 07:26, 19 November 2008 (EST).
 * I think it's becoming pretty clear what Proxima's motives are here. JazzMan 14:24, 19 November 2008 (EST)
 * Warning people away from the intellectual plague-pit that is Conservapedia? Sounds good to me. --Gulik 03:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)

WikiIndex
I have been asked how much criticism is appropriate in the this RationalWiki article.

May I remind everyone that you are now reading a page on the WikiIndex? I believe that everything is on-topic somewhere. However, that does not mean that everything is on-topic here at WikiIndex.

The WikiIndex page "The Conservapedia RationalWiki war" has been deleted because as far as I can tell (a) a better place for that content is at https://RationalWiki.com/wiki/Essay:The_Conservapedia_RationalWiki_War, and (b) that war is not a wiki, and therefore off-topic for WikiIndex.

Is RationalWikiWiki an entire wiki dedicated to criticizing RationalWiki? If so, I fail to see why that criticism needs to be re-iterated here at WikiIndex. And so I fail to understand why this WikiIndex page needs a criticism section.

Nevertheless, mentioning closely-related wiki is helpful for our target audience, and so I find mentioning RationalWikiWiki entirely appropriate in this article.

Is it obvious to everyone that I am strongly biased? --DavidCary 09:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

More discussion at Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki. --DavidCary 09:42, 24 November 2008 (EST)

"Cyberbullying" section
Surely WikiIndex editors should not use article space and admin abilities to pursue grudges about incidents at other wikis. I have requested administration on this issue here. 213.106.29.88 09:16, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

It's not a question of a grudge, my right to privacy was not respected and my real name was made public on RationalWikiWiki. Reapeated requests to remove the information were refused. Responsible wikis don't do that type of thing. Proxima Centauri 09:49, 28 June 2009 (EDT)


 * You made your own name public
 * And you cemented the "evidence" by complaining that the connection was being made between old user ID (your real name) and your new ID (See the RWW article...). I think posting a personal grudge on a site like this is rather odd. Huw Powell 18:59, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

I removed the relevant (and highly irrelevant) section. Your "real name was made public on RationalWikiWiki"? So why complain on the wikiindex RW article? Especially considering... well, everything relating to this silly beef you have. Huw Powell 02:39, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Where is the admin abuse page on this wiki? I searched long and hard for it, but could not find it.  is a clear case of one person abusing their admin powers to protect an edit they want to protect from criticism. Huw Powell 05:33, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki, but it seems there are no active bureaucrats.
 * I'd just like to point out that cyberbullying is a problem. The clause against personal attacks is ignored so consistantly that it might as well not be there. --Arthro
 * Examples of cyberbulling (victim followed by culprits):


 * Tolerance
 * Toast
 * Human
 * Arthropleura
 * Human
 * Ace McWicked
 * TheoryOfPractice
 * Tantagrella
 * Human

Judging by the fact that many regular users are downright hostile, I think it deserves to be mentioned. --Arthro (aug 27 2009)
 * Those aren't "examples", they are "accusations". Examples would involve presenting evidence. Huw Powell 15:47, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * To be fair, he can't acrue evidence while the site is down. Phantom Hoover 15:49, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Why the page "RationalWiki" was protected

 * In some Moslim if it comes out that a person isan atheist that can mean a death sentence, therfore users need a warning that their privacy isn't safe at RationalWiki.

I have never seen such an incoherent edit comment, from an admin, or anyone, for that matter. Admin abuse procedures will proceed. PC is pursuing a personal vendetta and using admin powers to protect her edits. Huw Powell 02:47, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
 * In Soviet Russia, troll feeds YOU! - therefore users need a warning that their privacy isn't safe at RationalWiki. 213.106.29.88 18:41, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Not if they first sign up using their real name, no. Pretty hard to protect one's privacy after that.  Personal vendetta much? Lack of understanding on your part of how to "protect your privacy" much?  Huw Powell 01:57, 3 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Sorry, I sorta missed the joke [blush]. Huw Powell 01:44, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

It's not a joke and it's worse than I realized, Christians risk execution as well as atheists. There are some Christians at RationalWiki and if you out their real names you may not know if they are former Muslims or not. Proxima Centauri 06:46, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
 * For the nth time: RATIONALWIKI DID NOT OUT ANYONE'S NAME.
 * RationalWikiWiki outed names and editing RationalWiki attracts the attention of the RationalWikiWikians. Proxima Centauri 10:01, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Could you please list the names outed by RationalWikiWiki then?
 * That would be grossly irresponsible. Proxima Centauri 11:58, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Don't evade the question. Which users' names were outed on RationalWikiWiki?
 * This is probably not the right place for questions like this. --Wolf | talk 15:36, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Not at all, I agree, and certainly not the place for PC to pursue her strange agenda. I have searched for admin abuse pages here to no real avail.  PC should be de-sysopped for protecting this article to "defend" her accusations, which, of course, have no place here - and aren't even legitimate. Huw Powell 02:05, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
 * To that end, I see that you've taken your complaint to the right place: Mark Dilley. I'd wait for a response from him before engaging in more tit for tat. --MarvelZuvembie 17:17, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

(UI) Thank you, and I see the ridiculous comment is no longer in this article. The magical wiki process must have worked! That is one of the fundamental principles at RW - that people who care will find the best solution/outcome. Glad to see it working here as well. Huw Powell 06:34, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
 * If Proxima Centauri is so concerned about her real identity being exposed as an atheist, why on earth does her Wikipedia user page boast of the fact? 205.212.79.99 14:28, 24 August 2009 (EDT)