1,136
edits
RationalWiki (en): Difference between revisions
undid last edit by Phantom Hoover, unsubstantiated and biased
(undid last edit by Phantom Hoover, unsubstantiated and biased) |
|||
| 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 and rebuttals== | ||
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 | Someone posted a criticism here. | ||
:One anonymous WikiIndex editor made the unsubstantiated claim that the following criticism is unsubstantiated (but not that it isn't plausible or probable): | |||
::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]]) | |||
:::A few editors here (one is anonymous, the rest are RationalWiki bureaucrats) make the confused claim that Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view, is contrary to a "scientific" point of view. ([[Talk:RationalWiki#Criticism_and_rebuttals|link to debate]]) | |||
:This anonymous editor went on to claim that [[Talk:RationalWiki#Criticism_and_rebuttals|these editors]] have pointed out that the policy for what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia, 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. | |||
::The claims of this anonymous editor are unsubstantiated because: 1) They didn't cite Wikipedia's policy. 2) They didn't provide any examples of this occurring in the Wikipedia. 3) They didn't show how any such examples would be supported by Wikipedia's policies. | |||
:The [[Talk:RationalWiki#Criticism_and_rebuttals|RationalWiki criticism]] was substantiated, because the evidence listed above, was provided. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||