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).
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):
- Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki, but it seems there are no active bureaucrats.
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- This is probably not the right place for questions like this. --Wolf | talk 15:36, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
- Don't evade the question. Which users' names were outed on RationalWikiWiki?
- That would be grossly irresponsible. Proxima Centauri 11:58, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
- Could you please list the names outed by RationalWikiWiki then?
- RationalWikiWiki outed names and editing RationalWiki attracts the attention of the RationalWikiWikians. Proxima Centauri 10:01, 9 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, 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.
- 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)
- Human has a vendetta, it seems, against PC. --Arthro
- 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)
- 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)
- Perhaps then you should actually try to compromise instead of reverting each other edits, eh? --Arthro
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)
- 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)
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:
- 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)