173
edits
RationalWiki (en): Difference between revisions
Undid revision 71909 by Lumenos (talk): rm biased idiocy
(→Criticism: Someone likes that term "random", but it has no meaning here. Made section into a criticism and rebuttals style with last edit as a rebuttal with rebuttal to that. Nothing was deleted.) |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
<Blockquote>''As a site we have a point of view, and that point of view is that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with. We believe that the support of, profiting from and creation of pseudosciences is dangerous and wrong. [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Project_Whitewash/What_is_a_RationalWiki_article RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article]''</Blockquote> | <Blockquote>''As a site we have a point of view, and that point of view is that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with. We believe that the support of, profiting from and creation of pseudosciences is dangerous and wrong. [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Project_Whitewash/What_is_a_RationalWiki_article RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article]''</Blockquote> | ||
==Criticism | ==Criticism== | ||
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== | ||