Template talk:RationalWiki

I don't think this template is necessary, alternative language versions of RationalWiki should be in the native language of the article. Elassint 7 March 2014

Sounds like a good idea, in theory; I think the idea behind the template was that people wouldn't bother to maintain some of the different language pages. However, if people are going to maintain them, then it's beneficial to let the content of the pages diverge, given the differences among the different language wikis. Leucosticte (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Leftism

With regard to this edit, RW is definitely leftist. No less an authority than ED says, "they spend all day being angry and find the best use of their time is to create barely comprehensible, raging anti-Conservative/Religion manifestos in the guise of wiki articles", "Criticizing Conservative Christian sites is one of the RationalWiki users' favorite pastimes", "RationalWiki can also be quite heavy-handed in opposing what it considers to be "authoritarianism", which is the quality they apply to American conservatism. Although conservatives seek to shrink the size of the government and the amount of money people are forced to pay into it, RationalWiki users somehow believe that conservatives are seeking to have the government control everything". Metapedia says "The first members of the website were leftist editors that trolled on Conservapedia" and "You only have to click on the peoples userpages who edited the entry entitled 'racial realism' at Rationalwiki to see Liberal, or other left-wing political stances listed in userboxes." LessWrong says "Basically the material presented is what a slightly left of centre atheist needs to win an internet debate."

RationalBlogs says, "One only needs to make a casual trawl through some BoN (bunch-of-numbers, aka, anonymous IP edits) to the wiki, or the occasional randomer coming into the Facebook group, or any of the myriad comments on external sites to come to a simple conclusion: RationalWiki gets a ton of flak for being outstandingly liberal. There are then a few questions we can ask. The trivial: Is this even true? The interesting: Why is this the case? And the difficult: Is it a justifiable position? The first question is almost certainly 'yes'. Subjects such as abortion, universal healthcare and separation of church and state get pretty liberal treatments (or, as we might prefer to say, don’t suffer right-wing distortions) in their respective articles. The editorship is also largely liberal leaning in the behind-the-scenes discussions."

Since they're anti-conservative, they must be libertarian, centrist, or leftist. Would anyone care to argue that they're libertarian or centrist? Leucosticte (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not the job of WikiIndex to judge their politics. But, yes, I disagree with the rigid classification of RationalWiki, and human beings in general, into being only "conservative, libertarian, centrist, or leftist." There is much in the listing, placed there by Leucosticte, who was banned from RationalWiki. It's his opinion, but it is not attributed. I'm politically "progressive," with some libertarian positions, which is a fairly common position. I would be offended at being called "leftist." RationalWiki tends to be atheist, pro-"science" even when common scientific positions are not leftist, and most of all, it tends to be adolescent, with gross humor and the kind of flaming common among smart adolescents.

Leucosticte should not be editing that listing with anything smelling of bias. They don't call themselves "leftist," and, above, Leucosticte seems to be claiming that it must be "leftist" because it gets "flak for being outstandingly liberal." They are not liberal, as I'd use the word. However, it's a wiki. I edit it once in a while, I'm not banned, and I have sysop tools there. Mostly, it's not worth it, like a lot of wikis, it's pushing a boulder up the mountain, with cliques and the usual: wiki users who do not want to take any time to research a subject, but just want to say something funny or witty or what they imagine is so. They would definitely make a judgment like this about another wiki. WikiIndex, my opinion, should resist this kind of abuse. Sites should be listed by site owners as how they would like to be described. If something more is needed, to prevent harm, that can be added.

RationalWiki is easily described as anti-Conservative, being founded for refugees from Conservapdia. Conservapedia is a major focus of derision for RationalWikians.

Lecuosticte reverted, I'm reverting back, and will probably take more out.. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is an authority? That's truly funny. As well, "liberal-leaning" is not a synonym for "leftist." --Abd (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"Sites should be listed by site owners as how they would like to be described." Why would we do that? Then we would just become a mirror of their "about" page, basically, rather than exercising any independent journalism. Leucosticte (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiIndex is not a site for journalism about and criticism of wikis. It's an *index.* If I want to find criticism of RationalWiki, it's easy. Just google "RationalWiki criticism." I get a bunch of hits. What I expect to see on WikiIndex is a listing, and some information perhaps about site history and status. I definitely don't expect to see the site described and characterized by someone banned there. And I don't think we want to ride herd on activity like this. --Abd (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a proud tradition in the wikisphere that people get banned from wikis and then go to other wikis to describe the wikis they got banned from. That's what RationalWiki was originally all about. Usually by the time you have enough experience on a wiki to fully discern its flaws, you've either drank deeply enough of its Kool-Aid to become the Establishment there, or you're banned. The people who are still editors on a wiki are usually too busy editing it to criticize it elsewhere.

Some pages on WikiIndex are largely attack pages. See, e.g., Loopa23, Ben Weiss, Billy Arrowsmith, etc. Leucosticte (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Leucosticte is using WikiIndex as a platform from which to get back at RationalWiki. If Wikipedia has attack pages, that's completely irrelevant to what is done here?, we should deal with them. Yes, that [the description of going to other wikis to "describe"] is what RationalWiki was, and our listing describes the origin. [However, RW was founded for that. WikiIndex was not.] So? RatWikians came here to attack him, and we stopped that. However, will WikiIndex allow him to attack RatWiki? I hope not. (Leucosticte's story about RationalWiki and Kool-Aid is crazy. He is practically the only person really banned there. I am certainly not the Establishment there, but I'm not banned.) --Abd (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC) modified Abd (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have such a habit of attacking users and their motives, in conversations that started out being about content? Leucosticte (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Leucosticte, your post, just above this, justified your practice as a "proud tradition." I'm not proud of it, *except where I create the wiki.* You are disrupting this wiki, and attracting disruption. I don't know your motive, and I'm not sure you do, either. "Get back" can describe motive or action; it's action in this case. The comment is on your behavior here, and that includes the tendentious and fabricated arguments that completely ignore the point, the function of WikiIndex. --Abd (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Loopa23 may have the consent of the subject and is not an attack, as such.
• Ben Weiss I have blanked, this is not Encyclopedia Dramatica in spite of some efforts in that direction
• Billy Arrowsmith ditto, and going back and doing the same with Loopa23, and will look at the contributions of that user, who may have come here just for this. --Abd (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Can of worms. Personal data of users, posted with no sign of permission, some underage. --Abd (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)