Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2

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:

• 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.

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)

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

• Many users at RationalWiki will remove factual material, even if backed up by sources ...

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.

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[1] 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[2]. 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 http://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#Conservapedia, RationalWiki etc. --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 [3]

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. [4] 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.[5]

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)

Proxima's recent rampage

Again, see previous. She edits and reverts with no real sense of how to write on a wiki, and has even blocked an editor for correcting her factual errors on this page. I don't see why she is an admin on this wiki considering her totalitarian tendencies. PS, she's also fairly illiterate in both English and wiki-skills. This wiki embarrasses itself by giving her control/power over other editors. Huw Powell 00:09, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd like to edit this article to fix the alleged "admin" Proxima Centauri's factual errors and grammatical disasters. Of course, I can't because she has locked the article from being edited to protect her link spamming to her pet wiki (Liberapedia). Sadly, this means she has also protected it from having any of her grotesque factual and grammatical mistakes repaired by anyone. Huw Powell 01:21, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Why is RationalWiki down?

Anyone can see these RationalWikians are being deliberately unpleasant. Only close insiders know what the real problem is though if the problem is what it seems RationalWiki will probably be back on or soon after the 6th of September. I don’t rule out that there may be a worse problem, I don’t rule out that there are legal problems involving those connected with Conservapedia or with any of the many who RationalWiki has branded practitioners of Pseudoscience. Many astrologers and other similar people quite likely have their livelihoods affected by what RationalWiki says and they will pay large sums of money to lawyers to stop what RationalWiki says about them. Proxima Centauri 02:17, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Lol. You, my friend, are quite crazy. Phantom Hoover 04:00, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Actually, anyone who's slightly more active at RationalWiki would know that. The better question is, why don't you allow those people WHO KNOW write the article instead of writing down your guesses. As for your speculation, dear god you're paranoid.

Well, she hasn't been around on RW lately, because of her strop about the whole Barbara Shack thing. She's always been convinced that someone will sue us, in spite of reality. Phantom Hoover 04:16, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Actually it was a fortune cookie. Tmtoulouse 17:01, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Why cant I edit this page?

What the f00k? f00k f88k f66k? k99f? Ace McWicked 11:16, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Put your suggestions here. Proxima Centauri 12:42, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Unlock the page and undo your reversions; unblock and apologize to Nx and Phantom Hoover. Then take a careful look at your reverting, locking, blocking, and oversighting habits and see where they might fit in better on the web... just a suggestion. Huw Powell 01:05, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Seconded- WikiIndex is for factual information, not pursuing personal vendettas, and if you made your own name public, that is not the wiki in question's fault. SuperJosh 06:13, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Human has a vendetta, it seems, against PC. --Arthro

Due to her labelling us all trolls when she gave her real name away and locking articles at least three times to keep her version up. Phantom Hoover 17:20, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

This isn't about PC's "name" issue any more, that was so last month. Now it's about her incompetent editing of the article and locking it to protect her edits. Huw Powell 03:56, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps then you should actually try to compromise instead of reverting each other edits, eh? --Arthro

They've already tried that CUR. If everyone just left this whole clusterf*ck alone, people would soon forget about the whole PC-naming incident. If PC stops digging up this issue - which in itself is just drawing attention to the fact that her real name is/was known - I think everyone could just get on with their wiki lives. This whole naming thing happened ages ago (over a year wasn't it?) and it's still being brought up today. SuperJosh 13:00, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

Josh, this wasn't anything to do with her name. It was her keeping an appallingly bad version of the article up by locking it and blocking dissenters. Phantom Hoover 15:03, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

I didn't bring it up here, they did. Proxima Centauri 14:59, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

Edit wars

I apologize that some of my edits became the basis for edit wars. I wanted to clarify some things. Lumenos 11:30, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

About this exchange:

As of Aug 22, RationalWiki and related sites such as RationalWikiWiki and the RationalWiki forum, are inaccessible

As of Aug 19, RationalWiki and related sites such as RationalWikiWiki and the RationalWiki forum, are inaccessible

"Proxima, maybe I remember the date better, since I was there, and maybe I can READ THE F---ING DATE ON THE BLOG POST" (Nx edit summary)

This was a misunderstanding. I posted the date originally and I meant that at the time of Aug 22, the site was still down. I posted that on Aug 22. Lumenos 11:30, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Please understand, our beef was not with your version (which was, admittedly, flawed), but with Proxima's out of place addition of advertisements for Liberapedia and her insistence that removing content was totally disallowed. Phantom Hoover 12:11, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

I suppose the beef may have been updated, but I'm just pointing out that that particular beef appeared to be due to an ambiguous statement. This might be one of those "inaccuracies", if there is more than one. Lumenos 12:37, 30 August 2009 (EDT) This might be one of Proxima's "inaccuracies" that I keep reading about, if there is more than one. Lumenos 02:54, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

OK. I realise that the statement is somewhat ambiguous, but there were other flaws. Phantom Hoover 12:41, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

I will attempt to write with less ambiguity in the future. Lumenos 02:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Lumenos, my problem was not with you making a mistake, my problem was with PC's inability to read or think before clicking revert, lock and block. Nx 12:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure I made a "mistake" per se until I know what "as of" means. Do you feel it was foolish of you 1st to leave it reading "as of" instead of changing it to "on" as I have done? Lumenos 14:41, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

2nd to assume that you understood what it meant and that we were just stupid and put the wrong date? Lumenos 14:41, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

3rd to explode at the sysop as if to BA the tiger? Was someone just saying to me how unnice something was? Who was that? Lumenos 14:41, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Similar wikis

Please place or move arguments here for what makes a wiki notable and similar enough to RationalWiki, to be included in the "See also" section. Lumenos 12:26, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

What criteria will include these:

• Atheism Wiki
• Debatepedia wiki also discusses controversial topics -- but puts both viewpoints side-by-side on the same page.
• FreeThoughtPedia
• Iron Chariots
• RationalWikiWiki meta site for RationalWiki.

And exclude these:

• Liberapedia

Easy. Websites with an aim of discussing controversial topics. Liberapedia isn't meant to do that; it desperately wants to be a parody of Conservapedia, a direction RationalWiki has been moving away from significantly (I'm told that before the crash it was agreed to purge the mainspace of CP references). Phantom Hoover 12:33, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Who should define the intentions of a wiki, those who are sympathetic of the wiki or those who are critical? Lumenos 12:43, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Those who are in charge. As the mob is in charge at RW, there is no easy way to ask it, but the mission statement sums it up. I really think that DebatePedia should be removed, as it has little to do with the mission statement; the atheism ones are OK, because atheism and rationalism are closely related. Phantom Hoover 12:48, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

So who is in charge of Liberapedia? Lumenos 12:52, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Proxima. Phantom Hoover 12:53, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

And this is their official mission statement:

Liberapedia gives the opinions of American Liberals and left leaning people worldwide. Liberapedia aims to entertain as well as educate. Some of the articles are serious. Other articles are satirical and shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Yet more articles mix truth with satire. We hope users will like to contribute to Liberapedia and will enjoy reading articles.

Phantom Hoover 12:55, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

And who is qualified to interpret that in this context? Lumenos 12:58, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Anyone. That's the whole point of a wiki. Phantom Hoover 13:00, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

I mean how will you resolve a dispute? Lumenos 13:02, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Is it within the realm of possibility that if Proxima (because she is in charge) were judging she would say that Liberapedia does the following?:

• Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people.
• Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas.
• Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

Lumenos 13:52, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome)

(Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument in favor. Only bullet arguments favoring the inclusion of Liberpedia info. I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds. Lumenos 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT))

• They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia. (Posted by Lumenos)

As I said, RationalWiki is now trying to move away from that, mainly due to the fact that the most entertaining part of watching CP was seeing Andy bested in an argument by everyone and then blocking them all, which TK has put an end to. Phantom Hoover 13:04, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, perhaps someone is trying. :) Lumenos 13:09, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

What about those who liked the olden days of RationalWiki, and they are looking for a wiki that is inclusive of criticism of Conservapedia? (We are not looking for exact similarity. If RW is changing this makes Liberapedia more notable, not less.) Lumenos 13:54, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

I believe RationalWiki was founded by people who were banned or left Conservapedia willingly. Others may be leaving Conservapedia for the same reason. They may have heard something about RationalWiki, and want some place to post their "grievance", or analysis (with sources). Where would be a better place for them to do that, Liberapedia or RationalWiki? Lumenos 14:29, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Like i said, we are not removing the Conservapedia namespace. We are removing references to CP in mainspace, which wouldn't make sense to someone who doesn't know a thing about CP, or aren't really notable (e.g. Andy's opinion on spinach in the spinach article, if we had one, etc.) Nx 14:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

So I suppose you are saying that they may be able to post this info to your wiki. Shucks, well I guess we could always use this as evidence of "They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia." I don't know how you expect to argue your way out of a catch 22. Notice it doesn't work the other way around. Like if you prove that you pay no attention to Conservapedia, this doesn't imply Liberapedia would not be of interest to those reading this article. I think this is getting to be a dead horse. Lumenos 15:31, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I think I completely lost track there. What are we arguing about again? I was trying to clear the misconception that RW seems to be deleting CP related material and that there is significant opposition or not enough support for this. Nx 15:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Ok, I think I understand now, you're arguing for including a link to Liberapedia in this article. If that is so, I'm afraid your efforts to to defeat me in this debate have been in vain, because I have no problem with that (though your argument is a bit stretched because Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP). But then again I'm not familiar with Liberapedia's content enough to make a judgement here. Nx 16:01, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

• RationalWiki may "purge the mainspace of [Conservapedia] references", which may alienate a significant number of users who may be interested in a wiki that is inclusive of criticism of Conservapedia (and maybe less deletionist). (Posted by Lumenos)

We do have an extensive Conservapedia namespace. Phantom Hoover 13:56, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Is this a rebuttal or misplaced supporting argument? ;-) Lumenos 06:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

We are only purging mainspace of CP, we won't delete the CP related material in the CP namespace - for example, our article on historical revisionism shouldn't focus on TK's oversighting. Nx 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

How many agree with that plan? Lumenos 14:10, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Exactly 47 users. Seriously though, you're asking as if it weren't generally accepted that this is a good thing. Nx 14:17, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Was I? If you have a source for your review that would be appreciated. A petition or vote perhaps. Lumenos 14:29, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

At the very least, Human would have to be on board, right? Lumenos 14:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Not necessarily on board, it's enough if he doesn't object. But you can also ask him. No there's no petition or vote, it's generally accepted as a good thing, especially as CP is dying, RW needs to move away and widen its focus. I have yet to see anyone oppose this. And with RW being down, I can't provide any references, even if I knew where to find some. Nx 14:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Well there we go, an reviewer who is very active (although sympathetic) claims they have never heard opposition. That is notable in my view. Lumenos 15:21, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

So? What are you getting at? Again, you imply we're doing something bad and are trying to deny it... Nx 15:50, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

No I'm conceding your argument here and using it as evidence that some reviews of wikis can be valuable even if they are unsourced. Lumenos 16:05, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

• Being that we are discussing merely a link, it doesn't take up very much space or detract from the article. (Posted by Lumenos)

It wasn't the link that was advertisement; it was her inserting a paragraph promoting LP as an alternative source of CP criticism. Phantom Hoover 13:57, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

We could definitely use some help establishing a criteria to define "advertisements" in this sort of context, if you believe you are qualified to make this judgment alone or establish consensus or at least some "consensus groups", to move forward on this issue. Lumenos 02:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

• If we add only a link to Liberapedia, this would not take up very much space or detract from the article. (Posted by Lumenos)

Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should NOT be included (rebuttals welcome)

(Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument. Only bullet arguments opposing the inclusion of Liberpedia info. I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds. Lumenos 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT))

• If LP devotes a lot of time to CP this information should be in the LP article and the CP article. It is not, of itself, an argument for it to be in the RW article.--Bob M 05:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Agreed that it should be in the Liberpedia article and the Conservapedia article, but I don't see how that has any bearing on it being included here. Readers may be interested in RationalWiki for its criticism of religious fundamentalism. They may be interested in Liberapedia for the same reason. Lumenos 08:33, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

What is Liberapedia about anyway

I thought it was a parody of CP (a leftist equivalent), but it seems it sometimes gets confused and thinks it's a serious encyclopedia refuting CP and fundamentalism. Nx 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Allowance of (critical) reviews

[I moved two chunks of dialog here as it is more relevant to this topic Lumenos 17:22, 31 August 2009 (EDT)]

Proxima and I would like to assimilate Wikinfo's policy wherein the mainpage is written in a sympathetic format and a link at the top of the article leads to a page devoted to criticism. Lumenos 13:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Being that you are a respected member of a community, I would like to feature your criticism with your signature, in the article Criticism of Liberpedia, in a section for RationalWikians. This would mean we would also create a Criticism of RationalWiki article which you may be able to help with also. Both articles should follow any other polices that are established. Sound like a plan? Lumenos 13:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't really think there's a need for a separate article for criticism, what's wrong with a criticism section? I simply don't see how a separate article solves any problems. Also, I'm not fond of the idea of including "user reviews" of wikis, because that's just a way to circumvent referencing (it's just an opinion, it doesn't need to be substantiated...). Note that I'm not against criticism being presented. Ideally, this wiki should have admins who oversee the content of articles, so that any criticism is well referenced and true. Nx 13:34, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

So you are okay then with having a criticism section in the RationalWiki article? Lumenos 13:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I never said I wasn't. I'm opposed to PC using this article as her little playground and locking out everyone else. She has Liberapedia for that. Nx 13:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

...if we require user reviews are referenced? Lumenos 13:51, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Probably most wikis wouldn't need more than a little criticism section, but look at all that has been posted to talk pages. Lumenos 13:57, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Having separate pages would allow us to leave one unprotected while the other is protected, if edit warring is only happening on one of them. Lumenos 13:57, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

It wouldn't work in practice, because if the main article is not protected, the link to the criticism article can be removed. Nx 14:00, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps not if editors believe that would only mean the main article would be protected, and the link replaced. Lumenos 14:08, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I doubt that would happen in practice. Nx 14:20, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

(ec) I'm more opposed to the format. I don't think it's a good idea to have a bunch of random people saying "I like this place very much they are teh funney.", with the occasional "They are very mean because they reverted my extremely well written and unbiased additions, see here." Nx 13:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

They would be required to provide sources for that information, but I don't see that it does much damage otherwise. It is obviously just someone's claimed experience. Now if they have a certain reputation on the other hand... this is why I suggest there be signed posts. Just like that debate up there about linking to Liberapedia. Lumenos 14:08, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Like I said, I don't like the format. It's non-encyclopedic, redundant, and generally a mess. But that's just my 2c. Nx 14:20, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Well we could always use talk pages for all these opinions and whatnot. Lumenos 14:46, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Proxima did say she felt the Wikinfo approach was cumbersome, so I guess we will try out just having sections for criticism, since Nx seems to prefer this also. Lumenos 14:51, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

19:01, 31 August 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (5,879 bytes) (→Criticism and rebuttals - belongs on talk page - please don't accuse me of removing criticism because of bias)

Oh no one would think that, don't be silly. Lumenos 18:43, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Nx's example of RationalWiki's consensus

[This was imported from the section where Nx realized he was off-topic was responding to the misconception of RW purging criticism of CP, so I moved it here where it ends on topic, where I am making a case that user reviews can be helpful (if not made by idiots [or liars]).]

We are only purging mainspace of CP, we won't delete the CP related material in the CP namespace - for example, our article on historical revisionism shouldn't focus on TK's oversighting. Nx 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

How many agree with that plan? Lumenos 14:10, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Exactly 47 users. Seriously though, you're asking as if it weren't generally accepted that this is a good thing. Nx 14:17, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Was I? If you have a source for your review that would be appreciated. A petition or vote perhaps. Lumenos 14:29, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

At the very least, Human would have to be on board, right? Lumenos 14:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Not necessarily on board, it's enough if he doesn't object. But you can also ask him. No there's no petition or vote, it's generally accepted as a good thing, especially as CP is dying, RW needs to move away and widen its focus. I have yet to see anyone oppose this. And with RW being down, I can't provide any references, even if I knew where to find some. Nx 14:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Well there we go, an reviewer who is very active (although sympathetic) claims they have never heard opposition. That is notable in my view. Lumenos 15:21, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

So? What are you getting at? Again, you imply we're doing something bad and are trying to deny it... Nx 15:50, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

No I'm conceding your argument here and using it as evidence that some reviews of wikis can be valuable even if they are unsourced. Lumenos 16:05, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

What review, and how is it valuable? Nx 16:18, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm calling what you are doing here a "review" of RationalWiki. It is probably not what you had in mind as a "review". I'm trying to dispel the myth that reviews are only done by idiots. Please help me dispel this myth. ;-) Lumenos 17:22, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

It depends on the implementation of the review system. I'd prefer to have my "review" incorporated into the article though (it already is to some extent: "While Conservapedia continues to be a major focus of RationalWiki, they have branched out into many areas of skepticism.") instead of having a mess of multiple, possibly redundant opinions in the article. Nx 17:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Well don't you think it important that your claim of "no one objects" be noted as your claim? Lumenos 17:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I do not understand why it even has to be in the article. Nx 17:46, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Dude, are you sitting down, cause I'm gonna blow your mind right now. This is the article!!!....er wait okay no, perhaps this particular example is not notable as to the itty bitty articles y'all prefer to make, but it was more of a uhhh proof of concept. Maybe later I will find a better example. Lumenos 18:31, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Criticism and rebuttals

RationalWiki vs Wikipedia

I don't see how this wiki could possibly expect to compete realistically with Wikipedia, in terms of the "official" goals that are listed at the top of this article. It does however have an interesting and active community and Wikipedia does not allow satire. (Lumenos) [Update: And you can say dirty words. :) Lumenos 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)]

It does not try to compete with Wikipedia. To put it simply: WP's policies do not allow it to call bullshit (e.g. creation "science" etc.) bullshit. RW can do that, and can also be funny while doing it. There's also nothing about competing with Wikipedia in the site's official goals. In fact some of us are quite zealous when it comes to off-mission articles (e.g. some pretty well written math articles copied from CP, where they were deleted by Ed Poor because he didn't understand them, were deleted on RW because they were off-mission, and WP would always have a better article about the subject anyway). We know that we stand no chance against WP in its home turf. Nx 14:47, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

What you can't do at Wikipedia is Conservapedia (or Liberapedia). I think your stated goals should include satire, since that is really what sets you apart. Lumenos 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Lumenos, you really don't understand what RW is do you? As in, embarrassingly so? (Granted it's down right now, but its goals are listed in this article). It's got nothing to do with wikipedia. It's not an encyclopedia. And why have you made such a mess of this talk page? Huw Powell 07:21, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I almost missed your post way up here. Maybe this wasn't clear. I'm only referring to the following stated goals which I think Wikipedia achieves to a much greater degree than RationalWiki can ever hope to. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but I hope that my critical views will not put me at odds with the community or administration of RW because it seems like a fun place when it doesn't take itself too seriously:

• Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people.
• Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas.
• Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

I believe it is nearly a measurable fact that Wikipedia is able to achieve these objectives to a far greater degree than RationalWiki, but I have answered a number of arguments to the contrary, if you would like to respond to any of those, or come up with a new one. Lumenos 11:38, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

The talk page is completely editable, I don't see why you and Nx seem to think that whatever "wandalous" damage has been done to the talk page, cannot be easily repaired. How are talk pages supposed to look in your view? Lumenos 11:33, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

No it isn't. It is that we have a specific point of view; a scientific one. Phantom Hoover 15:10, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't talking about dirty words Lumenos, I was talking about not being neutral. Nx 15:14, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Hum. Well here is that policy on neutrality. Are you saying that RW is biased or it lacks reliable sources? Lumenos 15:39, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Quote from our community standards:

"RationalWiki does not use Wikipedia's well-known "Neutral Point of View". We have our own version: SPOV. SPOV means two things:

• Snarky point of view — This is the meaning most people refer to. It means that, to keep our articles from being dry and boring, we spice it up with humor, sarcasm, skepticism, satire, and wit.
• Scientific point of view — Less talked about but arguably more important, the scientific point of view means that our articles take the side of the scientific consensus on an issue. RationalWiki should be and will be highly critical of any unscientific, irrational, or just plain stupid idea, movement, or ideology.

Our official policy on religion is that we do not have an official policy on religion. Our community of editors includes followers of various religions, as well as many atheists. Please bear this in mind when editing.

However, our scientific point of view respects the scientific method as the most reliable framework for researching and understanding what happens in our universe. For this reason, we are critical of both religious and secular movements which oppose or ignore scientific thought and knowledge."

Nx 15:47, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Well as long as you are providing the "evidence" of the "science". I still contend that the difference is satire. Perhaps you have a different criteria of valid evidence? Lumenos 16:02, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

What evidence of what science? Anyway, the difference is that we are not "neutral" (as defined by Wikipedia anyway). While their Existence of God page lists the various arguments but does not take sides, ours would say that it does not exist. Nx 16:15, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

This is how Wikipedia defined neutrality on that link I posted "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that where multiple perspectives on a topic have been published by reliable sources, all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." I don't image you perceive creationists as having reliable sources, but the question is does RationalWiki use reliable sources? Lumenos 16:44, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps the difference is rather what you consider notable. Where Wikipedia would simply not allow something to be included (due to lack of reliable source), RW would still consider it notable. So Wikipedia has nothing to "refute" in that case because it just deletes it. Lumenos 16:54, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

No, it's not (just) notability, and it's not just the satire (or snark, as we like to call it), though RW contains articles on things that WP would deem non-notable, and snark is an important ingredient in a good RW article. The main point is that while WP does not take sides (in your quote: present all views fairly), RW refutes anti-science, i.e. it takes the side of science. Nx 17:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Noooo, present all reliable sources fairly. Creationists have no reliable sources, you see? Lumenos 19:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

[Nx removed Lumenos' criticism as well as the criticism section] 19:01, 31 August 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (5,879 bytes) (→Criticism and rebuttals - belongs on talk page - please don't accuse me of removing criticism because of bias)

<Lumenos put the Criticism section back and put there a link to this section> Okay, boss. It is your move. I think I am going offline now. Lumenos 19:19, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

The Existence of God article has arguments against the existence of God, if you click any one of the arguments for God you will find more refutations along side the arguments for. Tell me this, do you know of any argument that is represented in RationalWiki but not Wikipedia? Lumenos 16:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I can't tell, but I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia does not say that God does not exist. You missed my point Nx 17:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

No it only offers a number of definitions of gods and tells you why they don't exist. But don't you have a reliable source for this information? Perhaps Wikipedia just isn't following their own policy as well as you are. Lumenos 17:55, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

It does not tell you why they don't exist. It tells you why some people believe they don't exist, and also tells you why some other people believe they do exist. It does not take sides. It does not tell you which one is correct. Nx 18:00, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

But shouldn't it really? I mean if it is really based on reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines them)? Lumenos 18:18, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

[Nx removed Lumenos' criticism as well as the criticism section] 19:01, 31 August 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (5,879 bytes) (→Criticism and rebuttals - belongs on talk page - please don't accuse me of removing criticism because of bias)

<Lumenos put the Criticism section back and put there a link to this section> Okay, boss. It is your move. I think I am going offline now. Lumenos 19:19, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Seriously, is this the best criticism you can come up with? That the wiki has no chance to compete with Wikipedia, even though it's not even trying to? That's not even criticism. You can criticize Conservapedia for having delusions of grandeur (Schlafly said that they would surpass Wikipedia in a few years), but RationalWiki isn't even trying to be a general encyclopedia, and it actively enforces this by removing articles that do not fit its mission. Nx 03:29, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Umm let me see if you are understanding the point being made here. (Nothing that you have said has indicated that you do.) We completely agree that the stated goals RW and Wikipedia are different. I'm just wondering whether this is true beyond superficial rhetoric. Why did we discontinue the discussion here and begin editing? Lumenos 05:20, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes, it is true. Nx 05:38, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

In response to your edit (what's with the strikeouts?):

[Nx again deleted this criticism from the article. Here was his stated reason, "Criticism - censoring silliness and one user's misunderstanding of the goals of rationalwiki)" Lumenos 06:54, 1 September 2009 (EDT)] Certain administrator are quite sensitive and controlling when it comes to censoring criticism. For example, watch what happens if you try to suggest that perhaps Wikipedia achieves the stated goals of RationalWiki (without these being the stated goals of Wikipedia) better than RationalWiki does.

The strikeouts were there because the statement hadn't become true until after you moved the post here. So I have removed the strikeouts now, and harmony is restored to the universe. ;-) Lumenos 06:56, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia cannot achieve the stated goals of RW because of its NPOV policy. Nx 05:38, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Okay (I'm just going to stop indenting at this point although I am replying to Nx.) Can we analyze your claim that, "Wikipedia cannot achieve the stated goals of RW because of its NPOV"? I think it plausible that Wikipedia's policy of requiring reliable sources (which is the main aspect of NPOV that matters here) is more effective at, "analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people." In other words, providing evidence rather then someone simply telling you what they think the truth is. Do you find this to be a plausible theory? Lumenos 06:43, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

(it's called undenting, and it's normal in wiki discussions) This has nothing to do with reliable sources. RationalWiki also references its claims. But that's not the point. The point is that NPOV requires all sides to be presented fairly, and that the article take no side. RW does take a side. Nx 08:00, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I suppose you could say that NPOV implies a sort of "fairness", but they do distinguish between (what they call) "reliable" and "unreliable" sources and I challenge you to find anything in the Wikipedia that states that Creationism is anything but psuedoscience. The Wikipedia states in no uncertain terms that evolution is a fact. It has and article devoted to this viewpoint. Lumenos 10:20, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for explaining the term undenting, BTW. Lumenos 10:22, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Lumenos asked, "Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?" Huw Powell responded, "No..." Lumenos 23:06, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Umm like I claim above, this would appear to be a nearly measurable fact. Do you have any web traffic statistics comparing articles that cover the same information, for example? Perhaps you mean, that RW is more effective, per capita? Do you have any statistics on the number of users of RW vs WP? Lumenos 23:06, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

An very rare example of Lumenos misunderstanding

It does not try to compete with Wikipedia. To put it simply: WP's policies do not allow it to call bullshit (e.g. creation "science" etc.) bullshit. RW can do that, and can also be funny while doing it. There's also nothing about competing with Wikipedia in the site's official goals. In fact some of us are quite zealous when it comes to off-mission articles (e.g. some pretty well written math articles copied from CP, where they were deleted by Ed Poor because he didn't understand them, were deleted on RW because they were off-mission, and WP would always have a better article about the subject anyway). We know that we stand no chance against WP in its home turf. Nx 14:47, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

What is the problem with merging the old [Conservapedia] article into Wikipedia? Lack of sources? Lumenos 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

What old CP article? Nx 15:14, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Sorry I misread. Lumenos 15:39, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?

I'd be interested in a responce to the following question: Nx said, "The main point is that while WP does not take sides (in your quote: present all views fairly)..." Lumenos replied, "Noooo, present all reliable sources fairly. Creationists have no reliable sources, you see?" Lumenos 06:10, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

There's a point I'd like to make relative to this, and RW's content, that I see no one mentioning above. Sorry I can't link to examples right now, but we don't just write "articles" on "topics". We do things that are completely un-encyclopedic, the best examples of which are our "side by side" pages. We take all of some original source, for instance, Behe's "Q & A" from his Amazon author page, and put it into a series of tables and refute/debunk/argue with them one point at a time. Regarding sources, yes, we try to use good references for our work, but also we use arguments and present opinion and conclusions ("original research") in our pieces. And, to basically answer the question in the header, no. They may have greater resources on many topics we are also interested in, and provide great background, but we go that one step further, as pointed out at the very beginning of this discussion - we feel free to call bullshit bullshit. Huw Powell 16:07, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

One could view this as, not so much a criticism of RationalWiki per se, but a criticism of the stated goals which do not mention any of these fine points you have made. Lumenos 22:24, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

And this brings me to the real "wandalously" crafty reason for this "review"/"interview". If RationalWiki were run by consensus (or "mob rule" or some such funny name for it?), than someone such as yourself should be able to edit those goals to reflect something that is really unique about RW. Lumenos 22:29, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Are others welcome to come and call you on your BS? (Note if that link doesn't work it is because WikiSynergy is having technical difficulties, presently.) Lumenos 22:35, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

You have no clue what reliable sources means at WP do you? There are plenty of "reliable sources" for creationist and other bat shit crazy ideas. Read what WP defines as a RS. WP presents bat shit crazy ideas in a far too sympathetic light. There is also the problem that WP is saturated that it is difficult to follow articles, and they often slip under the radar, with crazy people and their pet ideas being written by proponents. That doesn't happen on RW because the content creation on the site is easily monitored. Also WP is descriptive, RW can be both descriptive and proscriptive. We encourage original research and synthesis of sources and information. We can extend our analysis of ideas and people and movements in directions that WP can not because it is an encyclopedia. There are many examples of ways that we do things different than WP and for our niche we are doing very well. 76.113.112.137 14:11, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article

[I copied this, uuum not because Nx was off-topic, he was uber-topic. I don't know what that means but it is not off topic. Lumenos 17:48, 31 August 2009 (EDT)] Ok, I think I understand now, you're arguing for including a link to Liberapedia in this article. If that is so, I'm afraid your efforts to to defeat me in this debate have been in vain, because I have no problem with that (though your argument is a bit stretched because Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP). But then again I'm not familiar with Liberapedia's content enough to make a judgement here. Nx 16:01, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

That is such a perfect way of putting it, "Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP" certainly this should be included in a comparative review section. Lumenos 17:48, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

From Liberapedia: "However its creator stated that it was created to parody Conservapedia and advises that: "most articles should take stereotypical liberal views and distort them to the extreme"". What is your point again? Nx 17:53, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

See section name update. Lumenos 18:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Liberapedia is incredibly badly written (and is getting worse with time). RationalWiki is written better every day (that it is on line). Huw Powell 07:25, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Okay? Are you submitting this for the comparison section if it is created? Are you in favor of turning the "Similar Wikis" section into a "Comparison with other wikis" section, in other words? Lumenos 10:36, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps this should more properly go in the Liberapedia article. While it has been stated that : "Liberapedia is a parody of CP" and "most articles should take stereotypical liberal views and distort them to the extreme" if I look at recent changes I'm not sure that most articles do either of these things. I see various articles on interstellar phenomena which are written in a factual manner; an article on Hell which, while sarcastic, does not seem to fit the description; a factual article on the British NHS. After a bit of looking you come to "Atheist" which perhaps, sort of, fits the description.

Yeah so then I move it there for you and you whisper to the authorities that I'm traumatizing the talk pages. I aaaaint falling for that one again, buddy. Maybe what I should do is go create a section there, on an unrelated topic so everyone will want to post this information there. Then I'll use the super-safe strikeout to strike out the section/topic name so it will no longer be false at least. It is just impossible to create a debate map with you people. But that's how you like it isn't it? :P Uumm that having been said, I don't mean you Bob, you might be all for debate maps, who knows? Lumenos 12:24, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Frankly, I think it needs to re-define itself and after it has done that this question should be re-addressed.--Bob M 06:18, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

What question? Lumenos 12:30, 2 September 2009 (EDT)