1,136
edits
RationalWiki (en): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hooves attacks again; making his own rules for WikiIndex. I rewrote the criticism in a clearer manner, hopefully.
(→Criticism: Go away) |
(Hooves attacks again; making his own rules for WikiIndex. I rewrote the criticism in a clearer manner, hopefully.) |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
==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, would forbid them from publishing scientifically verified "criticisms" in the Wikipedia. ([[Talk:RationalWiki#Criticism_and_rebuttals|link to debate]]) | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||