Talk:RationalWiki/Archive 3

Neutrality possibly hindered by COI editors

I tagged this article because numerous editors and officials from Rational-Wiki have contributed to it, and our article largely looks like something Rational-Wiki and its contributors would themselves publish. It is quite probable that the contributors have the best of intentions, but sometimes it is easy to skew one's writing when one is writing about something he or she is deeply connected with. Aside from sour grapes from people Rational-Wiki has criticized, there is not much criticism, and part of the problem is that the notability of the subject is questionable as it is since virtually all coverage in reliable sources have been trivial. In contrast, there is vast coverage in unreliable sources, many of which portray Rational-Wiki negatively, pointing out the site's bias and its inferior standards of inclusion compared to Wikipedia. The last AfD was heavily weighted by people with declared conflicts of interest too. I think this article could benefit from some outside attention. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that about what you think needs to be done. The WP:CSECTION thing has already been discussed, and requests for reliable sources to build such a section on remain unanswered. There's nothing actionable about this tag, making it seem like a badge of shame. What needs to happen for this tag to be removed? Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

[COI: RW editor.] It's indeed unfortunate that few reliable sources analyze RationalWiki in depth. If you'd like, there's some recent trivial criticism: the Boston Globe calls RW the "the frothing liberal response wiki" to Conservapedia (and cites Encyclopedia Dramatica); Cato blog defends the gold standard against RW's criticisms; The Federalist complains that RW doesn't accept the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory; and a VG.no submitter complains that RW is biased against anti-Islamists.

Feel free to add any of these incredibly, incredibly reliable sources into the article. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If RW editors frequently edit this Wikipedia article, we could add a tag to this article's talk page noting which editors do so for transparency. This would be similar to the tag on articles such as on Talk:Bob Jones University. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It's actually just me. Added to top. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it just seems like "numerous editors from RW" to PCHS because numerous editors are not irrational. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Do not engage in personal attacks against other editors. While FuzzyCatPotato is probably the most frequent RW editor who edits this article, he is not the only RW editor I recognize when looking at the page history. Also, PCHS-NJROTC was also referring to page content in addition to editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you just name one of those "numerous" RW editors (with evidence that they are indeed RW editors) instead of darkly hinting at their existence? That would have been the rational thing to do if what you two claim is true, and there would be no way to contradict it without looking stupid.

The difference in behaviour between reasonable editors and others stands out so much... --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, rather than suggesting a malign influence is at work, it would be better to produce one or two diffs showing problematic changes to the article, with an explantion about why the diffs are problematic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is don't make personal attacks against other editors, even if you happen to be more "rational" than the other editor. WP:PERSONAL applies regardless of your rationality or intelligence compared to other editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:PERSONAL#What is considered to be a personal attack? and get off my back. It is perfectly fine to hint at the irrationality of PCHS's behavior after other users have already established that his accusations are neither based in fact nor do they have a clear rule-based purpose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL#What is considered to be a personal attack? makes very clear that what you're doing is making personal attacks against PCHS-NJROTC. See the first bullet point in the section, along with the fifth: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." You are calling PCHS-NJROTC "irrational", and you need to get off his back. You are contributing nothing substantial to this discussion. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where Hob Gadling said any individual was being irrational. It might be time to WP:DTS about the supposed NPA issue here; it also seems like there is enough COI for everyone who wants some to have a big ration of it. Please propose specific changes, or move along. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You say "You are contributing nothing substantial to this discussion". So, you think that asking questions like "Why don't you just name one of those "numerous" RW editors" does not help? Letter salad user has not contributed to the improvement of the article, he has just made baseless accusations of multiple COI. I asked for a base, he did not provide it. And you try to prevent me from asking such inconvenient questions that call his bluff. Just stop whining about non-existent personal attacks and return to improving the article, ok? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you can ask the questions, but writing things like "Maybe it just seems like 'numerous editors from RW' to PCHS because numerous editors are not irrational" or "The difference in behaviour between reasonable editors and others stands out so much" or (@Just plain Bill: this is the most blatant violation, IMO, and "hinting" is still a violation) "It is perfectly fine to hint at the irrationality of PCHS's behavior" is simply unnecessary and hurts much more than helps. If it weren't for your inflammatory comments and attacks, I might actually be inclined to take your side after reading your arguments. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Effective attacks tend to be robust and unmistakable. If you go looking for hints, there is no telling where you may think you find them. IMO it is quite a stretch to call anything in this thread "inflammatory." Consider how your involvement in Conservapedia affects your own view here, and consider whether putting a tenuous cloak of victimhood on the JROTC fellow furthers your case or damages your credibility.

Back on topic: please show specific instances, preferably in the form of diffs, of how editors' COI has degraded the accuracy of the article, or revealed particular editors to be hitherto undisclosed minions of RW. Better still, please offer concrete suggestions for improving the article, or collapse this section as unproductive forum-like wrangling. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We apparently interpret Hob's comments differently -- to me, they clearly are inflammatory at least and personal attacks at worst. I have seen him make other inflammatory and unnecessary talk page edits in the past, and I will pull up the diffs if you wish.

I keep my work here and on CP completely separate, and I take care to follow NPOV when editing. I have been editing this site much longer and have more edits than CP. I don't think my involvement on CP is a problem here, considering that FCP agreed with my suggestion to add a tag on the talk page. I don't care very strongly, however, about other potential COI issues on this article.

Regarding "concrete suggestions for improving the article," I do strongly recommend adding the criticism info that FCP suggested above. Most, at least, of the linked organizations criticizing RW, such as Cato and The Federalist, are noteworthy. I will add that info when I get more time soon unless someone else does it first. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"I might actually be inclined to take your side" - I do not want people on my side who go on unnecessary tangents by blowing single sentences on Talk pages out of proportion, I want people who know how to argue in a sensible way. I will ignore your red herrings from now on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"...blowing single sentences on Talk pages out of proportion" -- your entire original comment was a single sentence with no other apparent purpose; no wonder I noticed it. I wasn't arguing; I was asking you to adhere to WP:PERSONAL. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So, User:PCHS-NJROTC, did you find the "numerous editors" you mentioned? We are waiting. If you did not, can we close this thread? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't be silly. In addition to User:FuzzyCatPotato, at least User:Koidevelopment, User:David Gerard, User:JorisEnter, User:Zero Serenity, User:SuperHamster, and User:Nx have been involved in the development of this article, as can easily be seen on the history page. Most (if not all) of those people are administrators at Rational-Wiki, and David Gerard is a trustee like FCP. Any more questions? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

For interested readers, these are the editcounts per user:

User:Koidevelopment: 1

User:David Gerard: 1

User:JorisEnter: 8

User:Zero Serenity: 12

User:SuperHamster: 2

User:Nx: 4

User:FuzzyCatPotato: 40

This represents 13.3% of all 496 edits. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In response to User:PCHS-NJROTC, virtually everyone is an "administrator". See here. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Also in response to PCHS-NJROTC, these are just the editors that have the same user names on both sites. I suspect several more edit this article using different user names, although I cannot confirm this. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

FCP: That sysop policy does not negate the fact that at COI exists, especially when most of those editors considwr their involvement at R-W to be significant enough to mention it on their user pages here, and edit counts don't necessarily mean much when one edit could contribute the majority of the content while 100 people may make minor edits (including to vandalize and undo vandalism) or edits that remove content. To be blunt, this conversation has reached a point that I have lost interest, so I'm not going to spend time reviewing all of the edits to determine who wrote most of the content.

1990s: I'm sure some of the other editors have ties to R-W, but we have no way to verify it. There are enough obviously R-W affiliated contributors to prove the point without strawman arguments. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oooh, conspiracy theory. The secret COI one cannot know. Great argument, helps your case a lot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally. Thank you. Please note that it was your job, as a claimant, to show evidence, and not mine. Until today, I had no idea who those people are, and to identify them would have been unnecessary work for me because you had obviously already done at least part of that work before you wrote about "numerous editors". So, "don't be silly" was uncalled for. No matter.

Yes, those people should have declared COI.

But I looked at the edits by those who did not have many edits:

• Koidevelopment: [1]
• David Gerard: [2]
• SuperHamster: [3] [4]
• Nx: [5] [6] [7] [8]

All of those, except one, are either harmless link fixes, neutral categorizations ("Category:MediaWiki websites"), turning the whole article into a redirect because of lack of notability, addition of the template "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for web content", removal of content not covered by independent sources, and one revert by SuperHamster of an IP edit introducting unsourced POV.

The one edit that adds content [9] is an update of existing content.

So, they seem to be pretty tame. I would even call them exemplary users, based on those edits. I did not look at the edits by JorisEnter and Zero Serenity though. After finding no problems in the first eight edits, I am not inclined to continue, and I will just ask: Are there any problematic edits ("hindering neutrality") by FuzzyCatPotato, JorisEnter or Zero Serenity, or is this just a storm in a teapot? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, we are back to my comment at 07:13, 11 August 2017 above: ...produce one or two diffs showing problematic changes to the article.... I see nothing in this section other than people expressing indignation about an unspecified problem. Some other website should be used for that because Wikipedia is not a forum, and per the talk page guidelines, article talk pages should be used to discuss improvements to text in the article. It would be fine to identify problems in the article, but that means quoting text and providing an explanation of why it is a problem. Use WP:ANI to report problematic behavior by an editor, or use the editor's talk page to explain why their behavior is unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I apparently didn't make this clear before, so I will now. I'm not interested in pursuing further action. The reason for this is because I believe FCP has made a good faith effort to bring more balance to the article, and although I find some of his other actions around Wikipedia to be questionable, I hereby endorse his proposed additions. I also believe the COI issue can be addressed by tagging the COI editors on the talk page. One thing that would still be worthy of discussion is the weight given by Rat-Wikians in the most recent AfD, as several of the voters are affiliated with the site. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Three sources added

COI: RW editor, boardmember.

I have added three sources criticizing RationalWiki. I'm pleased to see more criticism of RationalWiki in reliable sources. Hopefully this resolves COI/NPOV concerns. Please adjust the language as necessary. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I commend FCP for making a good faith effort to create a more neutral article on this topic. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, FCP for adding the info. I made some changes, as I don't think the RW links are necessary (the cited articles that criticize RW cite the RW articles anyway), and I changed wording that I think made the tone snarky. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia allow links to RW articles

Does anyone know Wikipedia's stance on this? I have had some edits of mine reversed, as RationalWiki has been declared to be an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Examples would be needed to judge, but no, there is no prohibition on links to RationalWiki.

It is most unlikely that RW would be suitable as a reference per WP:RS. Use WP:RSN to ask if a particular link is suitable as a reference (specify the text being supported and the article).

WP:EL covers the use of RW in the external links section. Use WP:ELN to ask whether a particular link at a particular article is helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!Jehannette (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette

For using RationalWiki as a source, the important issue is WP:USERGENERATED; Wikipedia doesn't allow user-generated content (including wikis like RationalWiki) to be used as a source. If you have a good RationalWiki article on a topic, what you can do instead is try and use some of that article's best sources here instead - but be aware that RationalWiki's sourcing requirements are lower than Wikipedia's, so even those might not pass muster (blogs, personal websites, YouTube videos and so on in particular generally won't be allowed.) Using RationalWiki as an external link is a bit less clear-cut; you'd have to argue over WP:ELNO point 12, which forbids "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I suspect most people would say RationalWiki doesn't pass that bar. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Who, ultimately, has the final say if there is a disagreement among editors? ThanksJehannette (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette

That's a complicated question. Disputes are resolved by consensus; if you can't reach a clear consensus, there's a number of dispute-resolution mechanisms available, like holding a WP:RFC or taking it to a messageboard like WP:RSN to get more opinions. If someone refuses to adhere to those, there's an entire Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process that ultimately ends before the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, which is sort of like Wikipedia's supreme court, but it would be fairly unthinkable for a dispute over something this minor to end up there (and if it did, it'd probably be because one or more of the editors involved had serious conduct issues.) If you're having a dispute with someone over something like this and you can't talk it out or resolve it on the talk page for the article, though, running an WP:RFC or taking it to WP:RSN (for a dispute over whether something is a usable source or not) is usually the next step. --Aquillion (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use us directly as a source honestly. We're a snarky bunch so not everything we write is going to work as a reference. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yup to the above. There's inconclusive discussion about using RW as an external link -- but in general, unless there's no alternative, RW is a bad choice for a reference link or an external link. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional critical source

[COI: RW editor, mod, boardmember]

Townhall.com columnist Paul Jacob recently penned Christophobia Down Under, which includes:

Take the secularists at the above-quoted RationalWiki. They downplay the extent of trendy christophobic commentary and action, using phrases like “persecution complex” and “passing familiarity with reality.” People who most use the word “christophobia,” says RationalWiki, seem to “overlap with the people who claim there’s a liberal bias in the media.”

Funny, I suppose — to witness proudly “rational” people engage, however lightly, in denial of social reality. Did secularists not watch the coverage of the 2016 elections? Apparently these Doubting Thomases do not accept the evidence of Donna Brazille’s CNN leaks and the Podesta email dump as indicative of any bias.

In short: Townhall describes RationalWiki as "secularist" and "in denial of social reality". In line with prior discussion, I'd like to add this to the Reception section. Thoughts? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional positive source

[COI: RW editor, mod, boardmember]

In his 2017 graduate dissertation, Benjamin Brojakowski wrote:

Another common characteristic of conspiracy theory messages is the belief that crisis actors were used to embellish the impact of the attack or outright deny that the attack occurred. According to Rational Wiki (2017), a Wikipedia-style website aimed at educating individuals with unorthodox views, crisis actors are defined as “supposedly professional actors used by government agencies and/or mainstream media to deceive the public with portrayals of trauma and suffering. Specifically, they act as victims or witnesses in staged school shootings or hoax terrorist attacks” (Rational Wiki 2017, para. 1).

In short: Brojakowski describes RationalWiki as "a Wikipedia-style website aimed at educating [people about] individuals with unorthodox views". I'd like to add this to the Reception section. Thoughts? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Left-wing

COI: RW SYSOP

Left? Right? We're on the side of where the evidence leads. Stop saying we're explicitly left wing. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Mischaracterization

Rationalwiki is at best the opposite aisle version of Conservapedia but its presented here as some straightforward debunking site. There needs to be more emphasis on its ideological leanings. Jarwulf (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I moved the above new message to the bottom of the page. Please use "new section" for a new topic. As always, some reliable sources would be needed to expand the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

COI: RW boardmember, moderator, editor.

I've added just about every source that discusses RW that I can find to the article. Only one or two make your assertion -- a dozen others adopt the "straightforward debunking" viewpoint.

TLDR: Sources or it didn't happen. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Reception section

Is it really necessary to go into that much detail regarding the wiki being cited? Wouldn't it be better to say "It has been referenced by a, b, c, D etcMichael O'hara (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Rational" Editors

Very clear that this page is being self-edited. Cherry-picking of targets, attacking sources, and denying delusion when purporting white privilege and Marxism. A claque of SJWs if I've ever seen one who will have no proper criticism from a source that isn't a clear opponent. Reading over most of its content the fact this article doesn't bring up their clear progressive bias slant on everything makes it obviously a product of their own. Just look at this: https://archive.is/q2stC . Reading down below shows they're monitoring their own article to advertising the image they want for it specifically, which is not a neutral stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.42.171.11 (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Post new comments on the bottom, not the top. If you have a real source to present, present it without the ideological victimization and conspiracy theory nonsense. Dragging up old posts from 2015 proves absolutely nothing at all about the current state of this article. That page you link is just a bunch of random chatter. If you have a point, make it. Stale, manufactured drama isn't worth discussing here, or anywhere else. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Blogs / op-eds paragraph in reception section.

The cites in the blogs / op-eds paragraph are largely from WP:FRINGE sources, all of them responding to specific things RationalWiki said about their site or things they believe in. If we're going to cover them at all, it has to be with an accurate description of their objections - framing them as context-free, impartial reviews of RationalWiki itself is inaccurate when they're all responding to specific articles that contradict their own beliefs. And we definitely can't put an assortment of relatively WP:FRINGE blogs and op-eds, objecting to how they are described in specific articles, above the mainstream academic response to the site as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The Federalist, American Thinker, Cato Institute -- they're conservative (and globalist-libertarian, in the case of Cato), but it's a bit much (and quite POV) to call them "fringe." We're not talking about Natural News. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check

OK, I see that my creation of a section "Criticisms" has been reverted back because of WP:CSECTION. No problem, I was not aware of that policy.

But why removing the following critical reference? I think that it should be at the end of the section "Reception".

'''Media Bias/Fact Check'' a website devoted fact checking and to pointing out biases in media, states that RationalWiki has "a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes" and also that "RationalWiki does have a left of center bias in what they choose to list." '

Amirite (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Is there an article about the website that you want to quote as claiming a bias? If not, that suggests any promotion of views from the website would be undue. There are hundreds of websites that favor or oppose various people and organizations, and articles should not list every promotion or criticism. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I am the one who removed it. I've seen Media Bias come up occasionally, but I don't believe it qualifies as a reliable source, since it's basically one person's blog. It should only be cited along with a reliable source which provides some context as to why it's being mentioned. I could be wrong about this. WP:RSN's probably discussed it. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

[ec] Well, the bit about "They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes" does not look like a considered specific description of RationalWiki. It is a general broad-brush description of sites falling at the "slight to moderate liberal bias" point on the Media Bias/Fact Check's left-right spectrum, however they evaluate that. As such, it should not be given too much weight, if any, in Wikipedia's article. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Bias

A look at Rationalwiki's pages on Brexit or Neville Chamberlain should set off a massive klaxon about the site... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

To detect bias, there is no finer yardstick in current culture than Jordan Peterson. The opening paragraph "Peterson is better known because of his conservative, often problematic views. His views are exacerbated by the vagueness and ambiguity of his arguments, which allows him to say that his critics are just misrepresenting his views". Seems that it does not take too much time to find bias. He is not conservative, identifying as a Classical Liberal in the British Tradition. Define how a view can be 'problematic' (to who or what? And, yes, I can answer this question also!). I have not found him to be vague or ambiguous. Generally, I read a few articles on rationalwiki, thought they were biased, and have now quickly demonstrated it. It is not hard to 'prove' this position. As per criticism above asking for article, whether or not anyone has... and then it may only be a blog, do you need a blog to think for yourself? Most readers will detect bias within minutes for several articles. Which begs a question, who do the 'Rational Wiki' people think you are fooling? (Ans: probably just themselves)2A02:C7F:8A4D:7500:E044:D305:2000:D9EC (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the funniest example of bias. Is any more needed? Read this! https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_bias2A02:C7F:8A4D:7500:E044:D305:2000:D9EC (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinionated Leftists

Wiki brands anyone to the right as nazi's or alt-righters, under the guise of stopping 'pseudo-science'. The wiki may have been created in good intentions, but most of the articles just openly attack anyone with opposing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticitizen 98 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

(looks at RW's Jordan Peterson page) where's the lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.165.139 (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia

I see no reason to dispute the site's own statement on the subject. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Nor is it rational. Rational implies objectivity which the site is clearly far from. It doesn't take a media specialist to, for instance, compare the Michelle Malkin entry there to the Rachel Maddow entry. It's not just a matter of tone, which is, of course, very blatant. It's also a matter of content. The Malkin article is a long list of complaints about her lack of journalistic integrity. (Yes, I agree that Malkin is a particularly low-credibility commentator but that's not the point here.) The Maddow article has nothing of the sort, despite things like her uncritical public support of Joy Reid's lack of journalistic integrity. Another problem with Maddow is her "Are you scared yet?" fearmongering that she does. It's not merely tongue-in-cheek. It's a significant factor in her program. Because she produces corporate for-profit infotainment rather than objective/rational news commentary that's devoid of conflicts of interest, it's important for any "rational/objective" article about her to note her program's shortcomings. They don't just stem from her character. A lot of it is very likely due to corporate pressure. She may not even like Joy Reid personally. It doesn't matter, though, when the result is the same. If it's network pressure to support her or something else the result is that she appears to have defended someone who showed a level of journalistic culpability that, in my view, should have resulted in a large demotion. Brian Williams got into more trouble for less. He never claimed that his blog was hacked to try to get around his erroneous public statements. There are a great many people who can do the same work without the lies of a Reid or Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.192.36 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn't your place to complain about RationalWiki. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Permanently blocked for trying to add to a talk page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

That just happened to me today. I tried to add to the talk page of the Rachel Maddow article, an article that reads like a press release from her agent. I wanted to ask someone to put something in about the Joy Reid controversy and her role in it. A person does not have to be a partisan to think that her journalistic integrity was strained by her support of Reid. But, for an allegedly open platform, this is what I got upon attempting to do my very first contribution to the site: https://s15.postimg.cc/gpdbx2mrv/block.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.192.36 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2018‎

(Interest: RationalWiki Sysop) First, you're using a proxy when trying to edit, which we frown on. Second, Wikipedia is not your forum to complain about how we do things. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quotation isn't reception

As I read through the 'Reception' section of the article, it appears to me that an entire paragraph has nothing to do with reception at all;

Tom Chivers of The Daily Telegraph cited and quoted RationalWiki for background on several Internet laws.[19] Snopes has repeatedly quoted RationalWiki for background on Sorcha Faal of the European Union Times.[20][21][22][23] RationalWiki was quoted by Magnus Ramage in Perspectives on Information about the "Lenski affair".[24] It was quoted by Thomas Leitch in Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age on the history of Citizendium.[25] RationalWiki was cited by Reiss Rubinstein and Lois Weithorn in Responding to the Childhood Vaccination Crisis about the website Whale.to, saying that "Whale.to ... is sufficiently familiar to science advocates to be identified as a particularly noncredible source for citation and reliance", using RationalWiki as a source.[26] The Guardian also referenced RationalWiki's explanation of Gish gallops in an article on climate change denial.[27]

Quoting something isn't identical to actual reception. This entire paragraph, in my opinion, needs to be purged. The top of the article clearly has a banner on how problematic this article is given its reliance on too many primary sources, and this paragraph is a contributing factor to the issue with this article.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(COI: RW SYSOP) The banner in question is largely answered by the deleted paragraph, not an example of it. When RW is cited, it is an example of reception because if major publications use something we wrote it is usually an endorsement (or condemnation) of whatever was written. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Just saying someone cited someone doesn't say much. One should say what the reason they were cited was so it can be judged if it is relevant. A couple of the things in the reception section seem not worth mentioning, and aren't actually about the reception of Rationalwiki at all. e.g. the Johnathan Smith mention is simply where an exercise has been set to discuss logical fallacies and the author has listed a few websites for his students to go to to find fallacies to discuss. He doesn't make any comment on Rationalwiki at all. In the Magnus Ramage citation he isn't commenting on Rationalwiki at all but only quoting a letter that is on Rationalwiki. He is commenting on the exchange between Lenski and Schlafly. Neither of these are about reception of Rationalwiki at all. I agree that these two can certainly be removed. As a general principle I don't think its useful to have a paragraph that is just saying someone or some site has been cited because this could turn into a license to add huge volumes of not overly relevant material into articles. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Morgan. Citing one webpage doesn't indicate any form of reception to the entire website at all. Teachers regularly tell their students that they can see a Wiki page on a particular topic, while not holding that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Citing a webpage of a website at best indicates that the author likes that particular page. Again, this is not "reception" at all, and this is the first time I've ever seen a citation conflated with reception.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: Still waiting for your response on this point. You need to provide an explanation as to why quoting a specific article qualifies as reception for RationalWiki as a whole and not just that the author likes that particular article. This is an article about RationalWiki, not any specific page on that website. Looking at your user page, I'm also quite concerned you have a bias favoring RationalWiki's positions and so would like to keep this part of the reception section.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledging RationalWiki's Ideology

Wikipedia, of course, has the responsibility to remain objective and neutral, but this article fails to fulfill that paramount duty. When an ideologically-motivated organization attempts to support a political agenda, it is to be acknowledged (for example, the article on InfoWars acknowledges its clear right-wing ideology and demonstrated lack of credibility) in order to provide the reader with the fullest picture on the subject, although great care must always be taken to maintain neutrality when doing so. As of the present, this article only presents the reader with the site's own description of itself, which does not give the reader an accurate picture of the organization and could potentially mislead them. Of course, this is largely thanks to the OR rule and the carelessness of previous attempts at acknowledgment.

It is important that we maintain Wikipedia's stated guidelines of neutrality by collaborating to improve this article as objectively as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.128.66 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I would say that RationalWiki is biased for atheism... to an extent unwarranted by simply being rational (many Christians are perfectly rational people). E.g. when deriding Steven Dutch's religion, although he toes the line of mainstream science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I am totally failing to see where the neutrality is being lost here. I think its pretty clear what we do and how people might not be a fan of that from the article. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Serenity, the problem with this article is that it doesn't acknowledge the site's inherent ideological motivation and therefore does not provide the reader with a balanced presentation of the facts. I find it deeply concerning that many of this article's primary editors have major conflicts of interests, and have repeatedly stifled any attempts at improving this article's neutrality. Furthermore, I find it disturbing that you completely dismissed the POV tag with no valid explanation, calling it a "drive-by tagging" even though I had clearly stated my reasoning behind the tag. If you disagree with me, that is perfectly okay, but please do not remove the tag without sufficient reason and dismiss it offhand as something completely invalid and unwarranted when there IS reason for it and there IS an ongoing discussion about it. I will be adding the POV tag again until this issue with neutrality is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.128.66 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the rationale you stated above is simply factually wrong ("As of the present, this article only presents the reader with the site's own description of itself" - there are lots of third-party statements cited in the "Reception" section and elsewhere).

To show that the article violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, you should explain concretely which of the "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on [this] topic" are missing or underrepresented in the text. Please also cite these sources when you do so. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

My Edit

My edit has itself been edited twice. The first editor said that if people want to find the views of the author of the quote, they can check his Wikipedia article on RationalWiki. But the quote isn't about the author. In addition, it is largely made up of quotes from RationalWiki itself.

The second edit said: "So what?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There has been another edit asking me to justify my quote. The quote is classed as "random". What is meant by that? The quotes is about RationalWiki, from an article on RationalWiki, in a journal that has been criticised by RationalWiki and which even has its own entry in Rational Wiki. So why "random"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 07:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC) - Reginald Sniff-Peters 07:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reginald sniff-peters

Please look carefully at WP:BRD. The burden is on you to gain WP:CONSENSUS for the changes you want to make.

It is random in that there is no external indication that this perspective is significant, nor that these quotes fairly summarized this perspective. This makes the edit potentially WP:UNDUE. Not every verifiable piece of information belongs, and not every quote from a source, even if that source is reliable and significant, belongs in a Wikipedia article. The way to decide this is through consensus. If this specific quote is significant, please explain why. There are countless quotes which could be inserted from countless outlets, many of which have also discussed or been discussed by RationalWiki. We obviously cannot and should not attempt to compile all of them, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Further deciding how to summarize this information is not always simple or obvious. These quotes appear to be cherry-picking, since they were chosen by you, not through any objective means which I can see. If I'm wrong, please explain how. To avoid edit warring, please do not restore these quote again until consensus has been reached.

You should also review the instructions on how to sign your name which have already been posted to your talk page. Grayfell (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I am new to Wikipedia editing. So do you, Grayfell, actually work for Wikipedia, or are you a layperson in the same position as I am in?

Is your reply a cut and paste from Wikipedia policy or did you write it in its entirety?

You asked me to justify my inclusion, and I did. What does "external indication that this perspective is significant" mean? Is that the official wording of Wikipedia, or are they your words written specifically for my edit? You asked me to explain, again, why the edit and quote was done. I already have and you haven't commented on my reasons. - Reginald Sniff-Peters 08:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs)

I am a volunteer, as are most editors, and I wrote this myself. I do use boilerplate messages, when useful, but the above comments were not that. The message on your talk page was boilerplate, because this specific issue comes up a lot. These comments are original, however.

I do not see a persuasive reason listed here. You say this opinion article is about RationalWiki and therefore should be included, but opinions are easy to come by, so not every opinion can or should be added to any given article. Sometimes commentary is discussed in third-hand sources. This is an indication of WP:DUE, assuming those third-hand sources are also WP:RS. Rather than relying on individual editors to decide which quotes belong and which don't, we use other approaches, such as WP:CONSENSUS (this is an important one) and WP:SECONDARY commentary, among other things. Even interesting or subjectively useful sources are not automatically included in articles, so we will need a specific reason these quotes, from this one article, should be included.

Again, as explained on your talk page (by a bot), just type four tildes to sign your post. You don't need to add your name or the date, as this should be handled automatically for consistency and technical reasons. Grayfell (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Why should there be a long quote by Paul Austin Murphy in this article? (Long = by comparison with the length of the article; the proposed text would be 15% of the article.) Is Murphy an expert on rational wikis whose views warrant (WP:DUE) attention here? There appears to be no article for Murphy and that would suggest his views are not warranted here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Lack Of Neutrality

RationalWiki is the left's version of Conservapedia but unlike the article for Conservapedia which states in clear and plain terms that it is biased towards the right, the article fails to do likewise for RationalWiki. This article needs to be changed to reflect that RationalWiki is not a neutral website either in the introduction or in a criticism section. T.Nuvolari (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Which reliable sources describe it this way? Even if this is the ideological opposite of Conservapedia, we also cannot assume that they must therefor be treated exactly the same. Without sources, this would just be false balance. As for a criticism section, those should be seen as a last resort, per WP:CSECTION. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the claim "RationalWiki is the left's version of Conservapedia" appears to be factually untrue. Let's look at four areas of pseudoscience, two popular among the right and two popular among the left:

Creationism is pseudoscience that is popular among the right. See [ https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Theory_of_Evolution ]

Climate change denial is also pseudoscience that is popular among the right. See [ https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change ].

Antivax is pseudoscience that is popular among the left. See [ https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-vaccination_movement ]

Anti-GMO is another pseudoscience that is popular among the left. See [ https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Scientific_consensus ].

I don't see any evidence of RationalWiki putting ideology above science, but I do see Conservapedia putting ideology above science. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki isn't biased against science, but it is biased for atheism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you actually expect a wiki based upon science and rational thinking to not be biased against an invisible and unprovable person in the sky who allegedly controls everything? Here is what RationalWiki says they believe:

Point of view

"RationalWiki does not use Wikipedia's well-known "Neutral Point of View". We have our own version: SPOV. SPOV means two things:"

• "Snarky point of view — This is the meaning most people refer to. It means that, to keep our articles from being dry and boring, we spice it up with humor, sarcasm, skepticism, satire, and wit."

• "Scientific point of view — Less talked about but arguably more important, the scientific point of view means that our articles take the side of the scientific consensus on an issue. RationalWiki should be and will be highly critical of any unscientific, irrational, or just plain stupid idea, movement, or ideology."

"Our official policy on religion is that we do not have an official policy on religion. Our community of editors includes followers of various religions, as well as many atheists. Please bear this in mind when editing."

"However, our scientific point of view respects the scientific method as the most reliable framework for researching and understanding what happens in our universe. For this reason, we are critical of both religious and secular movements which oppose or ignore scientific thought and knowledge."[10]

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Atheism is a subjective view, just as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism are. Science is agnostic: it takes no position about God, since the existence of God is not a scientific subject.

Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed". The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that. ...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.

— Alvin Plantinga

Conflating science with atheism is just lame epistemology. "Science, thus atheism" is how to flunk an epistemology class. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Christian philosopher has a position on religion. Does Plantinga have anything to say about RationalWiki, or is this just a big waste of time? Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The latter. Most Wikipedia pages that touch on pseudoscience in any way end up with talk page comments calling for Wikipedia to be "neutral" by promoting pseudoscience. Religion is a bit of a special case; there is a kind of religion that is outside of science, and as far as I can tell RationalWiki has no position on that sort of religion. There is another kind of religion that makes psuedonscientific claims about history, miracles, etc., and RationalWiki, as is their practice, mocks that sort of religion. None of this has anything to do with Wikipedia, which describes both religion and RationalWiki from a NPOV. In other words, this article is not broken and does not need to be fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know why people are arguing about this when it is already covered in the "content" section, and primary sources back up the claim. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 17:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• They are arguing about it because they are not satisfied with what we currently say about RationalWiki (which is accurate and bsed upon reliable sources). What they want us to say is that RationalWiki is essentially Conservapedia, except of the left instead of the right. The problem with that theory is that is is simply not true. Yes, as we document on our article, RationalWiki thinks that Conservapedia sucks. But RationalWiki also thinks that the liberal Huffington Post sucks.[11]

Contrast this with what Conservapedia says about Infowars.[12] Infowars claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps -- but you will find nothing about any of that on Conservapedia.

In my opinion, we should pretty much ignore the constant stream of complaints from the alt-right ideologues. Just ask them for a citation to a reliable source that supports their claims, and keep asking when they fail to provide one. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want to bring opinion into it, I think comparing RationalWiki to Conservapedia is an insult to Conservapedia, but my opinion is irrelevant to building a fact-based encyclopedia article about RW. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: it's been like 20 threads, no signs yet FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

removed what tag

seems clear. rationalwiki's stated goals are exactly what's listed there. @Str1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=895629080&oldid=895172094 FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not about the list of RW's goals but about what "antiscience" is supposed to mean. It sounds like an extremely loaded term, one that WP cannot endorse in its description of RW's goals. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

PS. And there is still no "antiscience movement", even less so than a "science movement". Str1977 ^(talk) 09:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that your WP:OR is wrong. See [ Talk:RationalWiki#"anti-science movement" in the lead ] for a list of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"anti-science movement" in the lead

RationalWiki's self-description defines it as opposing an "anti-science movement"; it's normal to include that sort of statement in the lead, especially given that we have a secondary source backing that self-description up in terms of relevance. We can't censor or reword it just because an editor personally disagrees with it. If there are reliable sources disputing it, we can of course include those, but "I don't think the anti-science movement is a thing!" isn't a valid reason to reword a cited description of the site's goals, especially when it's already qualified by an in-line citation describing this as merely the site's self-description (making the rewording not only unnecessary but actively inaccurate, since it's obscuring what the sources actually say.) If you disagree with the accuracy of how they describe their goals, find a source expressing your disagreement; if you can't, it's just WP:OR or your personal opinion, and can't be used to set article content. --Aquillion (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I get your point that RW speaks of opposing an "anti-science movement". However, given that no such movement exists (we can't take RW's word for it) we either have to neutralize the wording (what I attempted to do) or neutralize by attribute it. The latter option is even better as it shines a light on the mindset of that supposedly rational wiki.

It has not been "qualified by an in-line citation describing this as merely the site's self-description" - in-line citations do not serve that purpose, they give the source but they do not serve to neutralize. You complain any change would be "obscuring what the sources actually say". However, the article doesn't say: "Here's what the source says" but "these are the aims".

Regarding: "If there are reliable sources disputing it" - that's not how it goes. There are no reliable sources espousing that conspiracy theory. WP elsewhere doesn't espouse such theories either. Also you cannot expect there to be many sources disputing the ravings of some random website. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The claim that an anti-science movement exists is found in multiple sources:

• "In the film 'Bill Nye: Science Guy,' Mr. Nye, the 1990s children’s-television personality with the signature bow tie, warns of 'an anti-science movement' afoot in this country. And this delightful, revealing documentary, directed by David Alvarado and Jason Sussberg, offers evidence supporting that assessment." --The New York Times
• "[Antivax] dovetails with a generalised anti-science movement: climate-change denial, scorn for any epidemiological data about inequality and its effects, a generalised repudiation of expertise." --The Guardian
• "The White House’s clampdown on the term 'evidence-based' is but one example of the anti-science movement. Unstopped, it will prevent advances in health" --New Scientist
• "One of the most surprising—and discouraging—developments of recent times is the revival of the anti-science movement. For a while it seemed that the attitudes which produced the Scopes trial, the Inquisition, 'Aryan Science', and the like had finally passed into history. But today the attack on science has been renewed, in a new form and with amazing success." --Reason Magazine
• "The growing anti-science movement is making people in Silicon Valley nervous" --Business Insider
• "Dr. Peter J. Hotez [co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development]: 'A Scary Anti-Science Movement Has Become Very Strong in Texas' " --Texas Monthly
• "The Anti-Science Movement in America — Is It Gaining Ground?" --Illinois Institute of Technology University News

Where are the reliable sources that respond saying that The New York Times, Bill Nye, Reason, Peter J. Hotez, or RationalWiki are wrong and that there is no such thing as an anti-science movement? Str1977's claim that "no such movement exists" is WP:OR that is not supported by the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous considering we have an article on antiscience. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 17:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)