1,136
edits
RationalWiki (en): Difference between revisions
I guess the anonymous editor is gone. Restoring original criticism because it is more brief and tidy. You have a number of rational arguments to deal with there on the talk page, Hooves.
(I agree. "Unsubstatiated and biased" is indeed a good summary of your position in this) |
(I guess the anonymous editor is gone. Restoring original criticism because it is more brief and tidy. You have a number of rational arguments to deal with there on the talk page, Hooves.) |
||
| 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]. | ||
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]]) | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||