RationalWiki (en): Difference between revisions
→Criticism
(→Criticism: worded better) |
|||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
Ex [[Conservapedia]] sysop, Philip J. Rayment once said that RationalWiki was, "[A] place of filthy and blasphemous language, replete with name-calling, smearing, innuendo, hypocrisy, and other undesirable attributes".[http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=14129&oldid=14127]. | Ex [[Conservapedia]] sysop, Philip J. Rayment once said that RationalWiki was, "[A] place of filthy and blasphemous language, replete with name-calling, smearing, innuendo, hypocrisy, and other undesirable attributes".[http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=14129&oldid=14127]. | ||
One random wikiindex user has made the unsubstantiated claim that by editing Wikipedia instead of RationalWiki, one is probably more likely to persuade someone away from pseudoscience. This is due to Wikipedia's larger and more diverse audience, and its requirement of evidence in the form of reliable sources. ([[Talk:RationalWiki#Criticism_and_rebuttals|link to debate]]) | |||
Other editors have pointed out that the policy for what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia's as well as its policy of a neutral point of view means that many pseudoscience claims are cited authoritatively and science and reality are often relegated to asides under "criticism" sections and constantly diluted with "he said she said" style writing. ([[Talk:RationalWiki#Criticism_and_rebuttals|link to debate]]) | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||