Talk:RationalWiki/Archive 4

Left Wing Wiki

"Conservatism Sorry, were you looking for Conservative? “”Conservative, n.: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. —Ambrose Bierce

A conservative on the political spectrum tends to be for the status quo, consistency, and traditional forms, while being against change on the grounds that it might be for the worse. In the gulag, the term has been conflated by many with very narrow social and religious prescriptions and co-opted by neoconservatism. During the 2008 election campaign, an article in Atlantic Monthly contrasted the old-fashioned conservatism of Edmund Burke with the right-wing radicalism of Newt Gingrich and company.[8]

Note that left/right and liberal/conservative are only regarded as synonymous in the United States. Following a hung parliament in 2010 the Liberal Democrats entered into a coalition government with the Conservative Party. In Australia, the Liberal Party are the direct analogues of the US Republicans or the UK Conservatives — they're economically liberal and socially very conservative. Explaining this to American conservatives tends to make their heads explode.

A lot of conservatives are mad at the damned liberals for disagreeing with them, and frequently attack them as general purpose scapegoats for any ills of society as seen from their perspective."

Source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

COMPARED WITH LEFT WING SECTION:

"A liberal tends to champion liberty, individual rights and equality, although it depends on what measures are being taken to realize those rights. Due to this, liberalism can fall under many branches, some even self-contradictory; for instance, classical liberalism favors limiting government action to promote individual rights while social or modern liberalism (a.k.a. progressivism) tends to favor government action to protect individuals. Unlike conservatism, its traditional political opposite, liberalism may be against the status quo, favoring changes to what liberals perceive as a better society.

A lot of liberals believe conservatives are trying to curtail women's reproductive rights, impose religion on society, and preserve and promote corporate power and power for the historically privileged. Some liberals attack conservatives as general-purpose scapegoats for any ills of society as seen from their liberal perspective. (A lot of conservatives do make for an easy target. See Ann Coulter for just one of many examples.)"

Source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_spectrum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.139.205 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the same website whose editors don't believe conservatives are full human beings.

Regardless, all of this is WP:OR, so it cannot be used to change the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Surely, you meant "some of whose editors don't believe conservatives are human beings as we understand the term" in the context of the leader of American conservatives defending his attacks on children with tear gas. Evilness and dishonesty are indeed pretty popular in certain conservative circles at the moment, and the situation is not getting better by you distorting it.

You are right about the OR though. I think this paragraph can be archived, or rather, deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What is needed to establish this is coverage in reliable sources. And @Hobs, trying to defend RationalWiki's position, rather than discuss whether the site has a position, is nonconstructive in my opinion. Political bickering on talk pages doesn't enhance the encyclopedia in any way. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I just corrected an untruth the IP had written. Why do you pick me as an addressee for your preaching and not the IP who deserves it far more? (Rhetorical question. We both know why. Because the IP is on your side.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

see also

when i made this article in 2015, i included Conservapedia, Citizendium, Metapedia, and LessWrong in see also, because all are alternative wikis. the current see also includes only SourceWatch and i'm not sure why.

• @1990'sguy: [1]
• @PCHS-NJROTC: [2][3][4]
• @Begoon: [5][6]

by what standard are articles included in see also? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's decided by consensus, and there is a bit of wiggle room. I usually trim see also sections when I see a list of competitors (for lack of a better term) because it tends to invite arbitrary links and spam. Instead of naming specific websites, I've added List of online encyclopedias and List of wikis. Articles which are already linked in the article, like Conservapedia, don't usually belong, per MOS:SEEALSO. If there is some reason to include any others by name, a sentence could be added to indicate why this is helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: that seems like the best solution, thanks! FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell's solution here, but in case this ever comes up again, I'd like to point out the problem with FCP's reasoning here is that RationalWiki is a response to Conservapedia, but it is not an alternative to Conservapedia or Wikipedia. It is its on crazy thing. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we get it! You don't like RationalWiki. Repetition doesn't strengthen your position, and it's obvious that something can be both an "alternative" and a "response". These are alternatives to each other, as they are all wikis which cover some of the same topics. In context this was perfectly clear and appropriate. Don't get lost in the weeds, or at least pick your battles. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Anders Giæver quote

An editor has restored the contested addition of a quote to an opinion piece by Anders Giæver that mentions RationalWiki in passing, defending it by saying that there aren't very many reliable sources discussing RationalWiki, meaning that we're justified in relying on a source that only mentions it briefly. Just a look at the reception section, though, makes it clear that this isn't true; the section is nearly a third of the article, and mostly filled with high-profile or high-quality sources. Furthermore, the position that opinion piece takes is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I feel that to include it we would need more reason to think that this is a widely-held or well-supported opinion; "one person said this in passing" clearly isn't enough to include on its own. I also disagree with the implicit assertion that Giæver is someone so noteworthy that we're obliged to include them - this is more obscure than most of the other things already in that section; there's no particular reason to focus on it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the re-inclusion on WP:WEIGHT grounds and because it really is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. In my opinion, this is another stealth attempt to equate RationalWiki -- which claims to be politics-neutral and appears to mock psuedoscience whether it is a favorite of team red or team blue -- with Conservapedia, which openly supports team red and consistently agrees with pseudoscience that happens to be a favorite of team red (See [ https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Theory_of_Evolution ] and [ https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change ]. There are essays on Conservapedia encouraging this sort of behavior: [ https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_The_atheism_killing_atheist_wiki_that_Conservapedia_spawned ], [ https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Conservapedia_triumphs_over_atheist/agnostic_wiki ], [ https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Conservapedia_vs._the_joke,_irreligious_website ] and [ https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_The_internet_island_of_atheism_that_has_been_bypassed ] (the reason they don't mention RationalWiki by name appears to be an edit filter that prevents that word from being used in any Conservapedia article)

We need to keep watching this page and keep reverting these attempts to violate WP:NPOV unless they are accompanied by a citation to a reliable source that gives the claim significant coverage, not just a mention in passing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As I am the person who included this, you are sorely mistaken if you think I equate RationalWiki with Conservapedia in anyway. I thought it was relevant to list this mention in the article as the source is not a lone wolf in describing RationalWiki in this way; the LA Times described it as a website whose members engage in cybervandalism many years ago. Now, if you really want to know why I am personally against RationalWiki (a fact I have no intentions of hiding), it is not just because of they are against Conservapedia (I actually learned about CP because of one of the RationalWikian's shenanigans on Wikipedia), it is because the site is a haven for hoodlums, several of which like User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver and User:Keegscee being people who have had to be community banned on Wikipedia due to wanton abuse. As I have said before, comparing Conservapedia, which is meant to be an educational resource, to RationalWiki, a hoodlum site operated by people who troll Wikipedia, is an insult to Conservapedia. As for this we need to keep watching this page business... please don't try and make this a WP:BATTLEGROUND. All I am interested in here is maintaining a quality encyclopedia article written from a neutral point of view, not getting into fights. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 06:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing this quote seems like an attempt to keep this aticle clear of any critical mention of RW. It is the removal, not the inclusion, that violates NPOV. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

If it were a genuinely noteworthy opinion, it would be easy to cite it to a higher-profile source - to one that was actually about RationalWiki and by someone who has expertise on internet culture and the like. But this quote is a passing mention, in an unrelated opinion piece on a different topic, by someone with no expertise on anything related to this subject; it easily and unequivocally fails WP:DUE. My impression, especially given PCHS-NJROTC's implicit goal for inclusion (portraying the site as a 'haven for hoodlums') and your goal for restoring (the desire for a 'criticial mention of RW') is that this is a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE - trying to give extremely WP:UNDUE weight to a clearly insignificant aside in an unrelated piece, solely because it is aggressively critical and because you feel that such aggressively critical voices are necessary even if it means disregarding WP:DUE. But WP:NPOV is about representing major aspects of the topic in accordance with their reflection in reliable sources; it isn't about trying to include every opinion piece in every bit of coverage, and it certainly isn't about digging through every opinion piece to find the most critical one you can. If a random aside in an unrelated piece about a different topic is the only representation of the fire-breathing "haven for hoodlums" opinion you're looking for, then that opinion simply isn't noteworthy. Certainly nothing about this random opinion would justify inclusion on its own merits. --Aquillion (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

So it is just coincidence that out of many that are equally as irrelevant, without expertise etc. the critical one is to be removed. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

We already have multiple sources criticizing RationalWiki. From the reception section:

"Several blogs and op-eds have responded harshly to specific RationalWiki articles that criticized their beliefs. Paul Austin Murphy, of American Thinker magazine, criticized RationalWiki for calling American Thinker a 'wingnut publication'. George Selgin of the Cato Institute disagreed with RationalWiki's criticism of the stability of the gold standard. Franklin Einspruch of The Federalist criticized RationalWiki for claiming that 'Cultural Marxism' is a conspiracy theory."

Feel free to add more sources that criticize RationalWiki, but as Aquillion already told you, they have to be genuinely noteworthy opinions that are actually about RationalWiki. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

My question is, what makes Benjamin Brojakowski's brief citation of RationalWiki in a >100 page paper about the Boston Marathon Bombing more relevant than Anders Giæver's mention of RationalWiki? What is the standard for inclusion here? Most of what is listed just brief mentions of the site; WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument to keep the Norwegian mention, but there should be some consistency here in how these opinions are handled. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Before I answer, let me explain my thinking/attitude right now, because I may have an unconscious bias. When dealing with this page, we encounter a steady stream of editors who basically want to blackwash the page -- adding negative material no matter what is in the sources, an occasional editor who basically wants to whitewash the page -- removing negative material no matter what is in the sources -- and some editors who want the page to be WP:NPOV but may disagree about how to do that. I would like to believe that you are in that last category, but your own words ("Now, if you really want to know why I am personally against RationalWiki (a fact I have no intentions of hiding), it is not just because of they are against Conservapedia (I actually learned about CP because of one of the RationalWikian's shenanigans on Wikipedia), it is because the site is a haven for hoodlums") tells me that you have a bias.

That being said, consistency between articles is an interesting topic in its own right. Sometimes we try to make them consistent, sometimes we purposely do not.

Let's start with some easy ones; if the article on Hillary Clinton contains an infobox with a signature and a reasonably good looking headshot, we try to make the article on Bernie Sanders have pretty much the same features in the same places. Likewise with smartphones by Apple and Samsung.

Ah, but what about consistency of content? We don't treat Winston Churchill and Benito Mussolini the same, because the sources don't treat them the same. So let's look at some articles about wikis:

Wikipedia has a bunch of notable sources that criticize Wikipedia directly. So many, in fact, that that article doesn't really spend much effort covering criticisms of how individual pages cover specific subjects.

Wookipedia doesn't have many sources that criticize it, and the article reflects this.

Conservapedia has a bunch of notable sources that criticize Conservapedia directly. So many, in fact, that that article doesn't really spend much effort covering criticisms of how individual pages cover specific subjects.

RationalWiki doesn't really have any notable sources that criticize RationalWiki directly. So instead we cover criticisms of how individual pages cover specific subjects -- because that's what the sources do.

Our Conservapedia page has a section about some attacks on Conservapedia by RationalWiki 12 years ago. Why? Because a source (Los Angeles Times) covered it. Our RationalWiki page doesn't have section about attacks on RationalWiki by Conservapedia.[7][8][9][10] Why not? Because no major source covered those attacks.

So what I am saying is that we treat different topics differently when the sources do, and that in my opinion you are trying to add an WP:UNDUE source not because you have a sudden desire for consistency between articles, but because of your admitted bias against RationalWiki. Am I wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The misbehavior of some RationalWiki editors could be true, but it is a red herring: RationalWiki should be judged primarily by its articles, not by what its editors do in their off-wiki time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: to answer your question, you are not right on that. Actually, I saw the opinion mentioned in another article and thought "hey, that's a stark contrast from what our article on RationalWiki states, maybe we should mention it in the article?" I think this opinion is as relevant as Benjamin Brojakowski's, which is why I included it. You mentioned that RationalWiki doesn't have a lot of direct criticism, and that is true, but it doesn't have a lot of direct praise either. You don't see prominent people recommending it or condemning it on television, writing articles about it in journals or newspapers, or writing books about it, just casual mentions here and there in publications focused on other subjects like the Boston Marathon Bombing or conspiracy theories, an issue that resulted in the article's most recent AfD being closed as no consensus. I am being very transparent about my bias here, but if you are accusing me of trying to turn the article into a hit piece, you are barking up the wrong tree, though I can understand your frustration with people constantly trying to turn the page into either a hit piece or an advertisement. And @Tgeorgescu: if the editors behavior off-wiki was the only issue, I agree it would be an ad hominem attack to hold that against them, but the problem is they act equally immature on their wiki, alas this has no place in the article, I am just disclosing my own bias. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@PCHS-NJROTC: As I have remarked before, RationalWiki's attacks upon Steven Dutch are unwarranted (or immature). Alas, I am not a WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• There's two reasons why this source in particular requires scrutiny. First, WP:EXCEPTIONAL means that dramatic, sweeping accusations require better sources than mild or unsurprising ones. Second, the purpose of covering opinions is to give weight to widely-held or important lines of thought about the topic; the broad range and high quality of sources saying those other things about RationalWiki demonstrates that it's an opinion worth representing. Giæver's opinion, meanwhile, is an aside by someone with no expertise on the topic, so it doesn't satisfy WP:WEIGHT on its own. And, of course, your question cuts both ways - keeping WP:FALSEBALANCE in mind (ie. it is against policy to try and include critical views simply to "balance the scales"), why do you feel Giæver's opinion must be included? We already have many sources describing a wide range of views on RationalWiki, including several critical ones. If your position is that Giæver's opinion represents a widely-held or significant line of thought about RationalWiki, surely you can find other high-quality sources reflecting it? Again, it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, so if it's true I would expect that there would be eg. internet-culture or harassment experts discussing RationalWiki from that angle - you should try and find those sources rather than trying to rely on an aside in an unrelated opinion piece. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This question has already been answered; I thought it relevant due to it being included in another article (which has since been edited by a former RationalMedia board member), and the reason I don't just go looking for another source is because, as discussed in the most recent AfD, there simply aren't any sources covering RationalWiki in depth. Please stop asking the same question over and over, WP:BLUDGEONing doesn't improve the encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 10:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Aquillion's comment (of 10:20, 23 June 2019) that this seems like a case of trying to include a critical comment in a relatively low-quality/low-relevance source just because it's critical. If (as suggested above) there are other sentences also sourced to mere passing mentions, feel free to start a section about removing them too... -sche (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Political Leanings

there seem to be sufficient sources to add a section on political leanings:

• https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3329582 "The third is a dataset of political articles taken from Conservapedia (a Republican response to Wikipedia) and RationalWiki (a Democratic response to Conservapedia)." "RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.org/) is also a wiki encyclopedia project website, which was, in turn, created as a liberal response to Conservapedia."
• https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-this-hitler-loving-pedophile-running-for-u-s-congress-1.6176374 "Larson may have even been the first person ever banned from RationalWiki – the unsanctioned libertarian wiki site, noted for being even more unregulated than Wikipedia." "On the libertarian RationalWiki, for example, as a user called Tisane, he edited extensively from 2010 to 2012"
• https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2017/06/22/the-rise-online-altcyclopedia/iXQtJ6JuFE7wxzf98be13N/story.html "Then there’s Conservapedia, which is what it says on the tin (and always seems to have “just updated” its “liberal” entry); and, of course, Rationalwiki, the frothing liberal response wiki, "
• https://mobile.wnd.com/2018/08/google-king-of-trump-derangement-syndrome/ "Likewise, if you should Google the independent, right-of-center news sites like WND, Breitbart or Daily Caller, you will quickly be confronted with attacks on their credibility from a pack of lying, partisan hack sites from Rational Wiki to the SPLC to Media Matters to Snopes."

FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

acm.org looks reliable and discusses the topic at length.

haaretz.com is behind a pay wall. Could you please cut and past the part that talks about RationalWiki and explain why you are giving weight to this particular editorial opinion?

bostonglobe.com is an editorial that only mentions RationalWiki in passing, (and thinks Encyclopedia Dramatica is a good source!).

wnd.com does not meet or criteria for a WP:RS, and is an editorial that only mentions RationalWiki in passing.

I can only conclude that you did not start with the most reliable sources and report what they say on the topic but instead started out with the conclusion you wanted to reach and searched and searched for a website -- any website -- that backs up what you already decided to be The Truth.

I would like to open a discussion about the one reliable source you found. The other three suck. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:

Haaretz is already quoted

I agree that the other sources are low-quality, but noting that conservative sources (in this case, the founder of WND, Farah) call Rationalwiki liberal seems useful? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No. I do not think it is useful. We have an observation (RationalWiki opposes Conservapedia) and two theories about why, one from RationalWiki and one from Conservapedia and related alt-right websites. You are assuming without evidence that one of those claims is true and one of them is false.

Conservapedia and related alt-right websites claim that RationalWiki opposes Conservapedia because Conservapedia is conservative and RationalWiki is liberal.

RationalWiki claims that RationalWiki opposes Conservapedia because Conservapedia is full of shit. Which they are:

• https://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionists_who_have_had_problems_with_being_overweight_and/or_obese
• https://www.conservapedia.com/Vaccine
• https://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth
• https://www.conservapedia.com/Feminism
• https://www.conservapedia.com/Shroud_of_Turin
• https://www.conservapedia.com/Creationist_contributions_to_science
• https://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Why_Do_Non-Conservatives_Exist%3F
• https://www.conservapedia.com/Overcoming_homosexuality
• https://www.conservapedia.com/Labor_union

A source from an alt-right website that says that RationalWiki is liberal simply confirms that the claim by Conservapedia and related alt-right websites exists. It does nothing to disprove the alternate claim made by RationalWiki itself. None of your sources does anything to establish that the reason given by RationalWiki is wrong and the reason given by Conservapedia is right. It appears that you have decided who is lying and who is telling the truth based upon something other than evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, RationalWiki is so much more respectable with articles like https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cunt, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Andrew_Schlafly, and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Weapon_of_gun. One may notice two out of three of these are in the "fun" space. The real zinger of an article (which wasn't vandalism, just a stupid product of a group of stupid people who created the stupid website) is in the mainspace there, and I will not be linking to it seemingly the same reason they say not to "WIGO" Conservapedia vandalism. I don't see how this discussion of Conservapedia being full of fecal matter improves our encyclopedia in any way, so as a Wikipedian interested in keeping this talk page relevant to Wikipedia, I suggest letting that rabbit trail die. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add this example of how low their standards for inclusion in the "fun" space must be. It's not even funny; it just looks like something some middle school kid would write on a Wikipedia article out of boredom. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall implying that RationalWiki is or is not respectable. Could you please provide a quote where I did that?

Again, RationalWiki claims one thing and Conservapedia and related alt-right websites claim another thing, and I am being asked to decide, without evidence (other than repeating the claims made by Conservapedia and related alt-right websites), that RationalWiki is lying and Conservapedia is correct. Yes, I am pushing back against us doing that. I would push back just as hard if someone wanted us to decide without evidence that it was Conservapedia that is is lying. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Linking to the Fun namespace to discuss what RationalWiki is? That's like linking to a Wikipedia talk page to argue that Wikipedia is a chat forum not an encyclopedia. Anyway, that's not the point. Studying RationalWiki based on articles linked here would be original research and can't be used for the article. --mfb (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

One of those articles is not a fun space article, just to point that out... I agree that Wikipedians trying to decide the bias of RationalWiki based on our own original thought is improper, and everything needs to go through WP:RS. That is the entire point of WP:NPOV. Perhaps this is stuff that should be included in the "reception" section rather than given its own section, since the whole premise of removing the entry I offered was that it is a fringe view that contradicted all of the other entries. If nothing else, what FCP has proposed has weakened the WP:UNDUE argument. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Translation request

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanSci_%E6%B3%9B%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%B8

Original:

在高中或是大學的物理或化學入門課程中，每週一次對一個 30 到 50 分鐘的閱讀作業的額外 5 分鐘小考，就可以逐漸的讓學生警覺到山寨科學的誤謬以及它對社會的危害。我建議用百科全書級的資源 RationalWiki 做為一個開端。這一層的訓練也許不像許多教師都已經重視的全球氣候變遷那般迫切，但是山寨科學的威脅絕不可輕忽，而且課堂是僅存能夠有效的挑戰山寨科學的地方。

Machine-translated:

In an introductory course in physics or chemistry at a high school or university, an additional 5 minute quiz for a 30 to 50 minute reading assignment per week can gradually alert students to the misunderstanding of the cottage science and its harm to society. . I recommend using the encyclopedia-level resource RationalWiki as a starting point. This level of training may not be as urgent as the global climate change that many teachers have already valued, but the threat of cottage science must not be neglected, and the classroom is the only place where it can effectively challenge the science of the cottage.

I don't know where to request a human translation. Can somebody help? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Similar story for http://www.slate.fr/story/140342/le-renseignement-militaire-4chan

De fait, le blogueur geek ne mentionnait pas, lui non plus, la source de sa vision conspirationniste et délirante du «Web profond». Mais RationalWiki, un site qui s'est donné pour vocation de documenter (et contrecarrer) la pseudo-science, en a retracé l'origine: c'est une (dés)infographie mise en ligne en 2011 et qui définissait, point par point, les soi-disant «niveaux» du web que la DRSD et la gendarmerie ont donc... copié-collé.

I don't know where to request a human translation. Can somebody help? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Similar story for http://www.slate.fr/story/140342/le-renseignement-militaire-4chan

De fait, le blogueur geek ne mentionnait pas, lui non plus, la source de sa vision conspirationniste et délirante du «Web profond». Mais RationalWiki, un site qui s'est donné pour vocation de documenter (et contrecarrer) la pseudo-science, en a retracé l'origine: c'est une (dés)infographie mise en ligne en 2011 et qui définissait, point par point, les soi-disant «niveaux» du web que la DRSD et la gendarmerie ont donc... copié-collé.

In fact, the geek blogger did not mention, either, the source of his conspiracy and delirious vision of the "deep Web". But RationalWiki, a site that aims to document (and thwart) the pseudo-science, has traced its origin: it is a (dis) infographic put online in 2011 and which defined, point by point , so-called "levels" of the web that the DRSD and the gendarmerie have ... copied and pasted.

Thanks! FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Where exactly did the Chinese text come from? It's not at the zh.Wikipedia article. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: apologies, wrong link. right here: http://pansci.asia/archives/112033

FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato: Unfortunately, it's actually a copyright issue to copy text from a non-Wikimedia source and post it directly at Wikipedia, even on a talk page. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, the length of that text is short enough to include here as a quote. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for that. You're right; I guess all I saw was a wall of Chinese text and overlooked the fact that it's only a couple of sentences. I went ahead and restored the text PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Article Bias

Reading through several articles on RationalWiki its clear that as a website it makes no attempts to be neutral nor even at times rational with all its strongly favoring left wing viewpoints. Yet this Wikipedia article hardly mentions that compared to what it says about its exact opposite Conservapedia.

Lets compare the introductory sentence on Wikipedia for Conservapedia vs RationalWiki:

Conservapedia /kənˌsɜːrvəˈpiːdiə/ is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative and fundamentalist Christian point of view.

RationalWiki is a wiki whose stated aims are to critique and challenge pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism and analyze how these subjects are handled in the media

Forgive me for thinking that Wikipedia has a left wing bias... T.Nuvolari (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@T.Nuvolari: you're the 50th person to say so without any reliable sources to back it up FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

T.Nuvolari, Nobody cares about your personal opinions. Do you have citations to reliable sources that support it?

We certainly have such sources for Conservapedia (as if the name and their own words[11] were not enough):

• ...Conservapedia, a new wiki for those "tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears."
• Christian fundamentalists in the US have launched two online encyclopedias modeled on the Wikipedia format. Conservapedia and CreationWiki aim to explain the world from a creationist perspective.
• Conservatives often decry a liberal bias in the media and elsewhere. Some even see it in some of the Internet's most popular destinations. Conservapedia.com is a politically bent mimic of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.com
• It seems that the folks at Conservapedia – a sort of conservative alternative to the more familiar online encyclopedia Wikipedia – are not fans of Einstein’s most famous theory, general relativity. In fact, they view it as a far-reaching liberal conspiracy.
• Conservapedia justifies its existence by representing itself as an alternative to the purported liberal, anti-American and anti-Christian Wikipedia. These and other charges are expounded upon in Conservapedia’s burgeoning list of Wikipedia’s alleged biases. These include the use of British spelling, Common Era notation for dates, and skepticism about biblical stories (of the Flood and Creationism, in particular).
• Conservapedia is a parallel to Wikipedia, founded in November 2006 by Andy Schafly. The idea behind the project is to create an encyclopedic resource on the internet "free of corruption by liberal untruths" (in contrast to Wikipedia).
• An alternative Wikipedia written by conservative Christians has become a major target of mockery on the web. Conservapedia, a wiki-based encyclopedia that offers the historical record from a conservative perspective, is attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs
• Is Conservapedia aiming to be for the Internet encyclopedia what Fox News Channel was for cable TV? "Well," says Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia's founder, thinking for a moment, "Yes, it is!" The website is on the same trajectory, at least. Fox stepped onto the national scene decrying liberal bias in the media and hyping conservative points-of-view, all the while calling itself "fair and balanced." Conservapedia is doing the same, launching as it condemns Wikipedia, the wildly popular Internet encyclopedia that pretty much anyone can contribute to, for being skewed liberal, and against religion and America.

Give us reliable sources that support your views. Until you do that we will continue to reject them. I strongly suggest that you read WP:V and WP:RS first. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The following is taken from the Rational Wiki article on Fox News -

"The Ministry of Truth Fox News Channel (Not Racist, But #1 With Racists[4]), a.k.a Fucked News, Faux News (by people who don't know how to pronounce 'faux'), Pox News[5], 7ox News[6], "Bullshit Mountain",[7] America's Pravda,[8] and so forth, is an American cable and satellite propaganda-delivery machine news channel whose owner News Corp perpetrates all sorts of right-wing slants and sensationalist headlines back home.

There's a reason it can't be called "news" in Canada.[dubious] It's entertainment, like the National Enquirer in audiovisual form. Unlike other news organizations, Fox does not have a department of ethics and standards and does not publish ethics guidelines.[9] Fox is generally extremely reluctant to retract fake news that it spreads, such as about Seth Rich"

What more evidence of bias is needed, this is straight from their own mouth. T.Nuvolari (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

References

That sounds "Fair and balanced" to me.

Guy asked for reliable sources, not for WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the usual WP:OR and lack of WP:V or WP:RS, T.Nuvolari's basic argument (RationalWiki makes fun of Fox News, therefore RationalWiki is liberal) is deeply flawed. RationalWiki also makes fun of The Huffington Post[12] and MSNBC[13] therefore ... RationalWiki is conservative?

Compare Conservapedia's article on Infowars[14]

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 good luck finding any inf on that anywhere on Conservapedia! RationalWiki, on the other hand, mocks far-right Infowars[15] and far-left AlterNet[16] equally. In fact, they have an entire category for Liberal Moonbattery.[17] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that RW has a left wing bias, I honestly agree with Guy Macon that Rational-Wiki makes fun of everybody, not just conservatives. It's a site that was created by pranksters who like to horse around blocking each other for nonsense reasons... the snarky coverage of Fox News isn't enough in itself to declare Rational-Wiki left wing. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• I mean the whole Fox thing was actually mostly about the short-lived Sun News Network that got called "Fox News North." You can still watch US fox news if you really want to rot your brain. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  RationalWiki making fun of Fox News:[18] RationalWiki making fun of MSNBC:[19] RationalWiki making fun of CNN:[20] RationalWiki making fun of The Daily Mail:[21] RationalWiki making fun of National Public Radio:[22] RationalWiki not making fun of Cracked.com:[23] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

In October of 2015 the archiving for this page was set to "algo = old(48h)", and remained at 48h until I changed it yesterday. I basically copied what I know works -- the 3-day archiving at Jimbo's talk page -- and tweaked it to the same archiving frequency that has been in place on this page for over three years.

I changed it because the archiving was broken, There is a thread from 23 June 2019 in the latest archive but there is an old thread on this talk page that has not changed from since 2 October 2015 that has not been archived. For now I just want to make it work, which means waiting a couple of days to see if the bot archives that old 2015 thread.

Begoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) objected to my changing it from "48h" to "2d".[24]

Despite this page already having a setting of "algo = old(48h)" I have set it to 7d while we discuss this on the talk page.

Here is why I think 48h/2d was the right decision:

An archiving frequency of two days means that it gets archived 2 days after the last comment, and anyone can set the archive frequency as long as they want on an individual thread using Template:Do not archive until.

We get a steady string of new users, each demanding the same thing, each ignoring all of the existing threads, and each failing to supply any reliable sources that would cause us to make the edits that they demand we make.

There is a reason why we are getting these posts. Certain websites are pretty much sending the POV pushers here:

• Conservapedia v. Wikipedia: A self-proclaimed jihad!
• Know Your Meme: Conservapedia
• Need hard facts? Try Conservapedia
• RationalWiki is just as bad as Conservapedia, and both are bad for society as a whole
• Would you rather use Conservapedia or Rationalwiki for the rest of your life?

Related:

• 5 Terrifying Bastardizations of the Wikipedia Model
• TV Tropes: Rational Wiki
• [ Encyclopedia Dramatica: Conservapedia ]
• [ Encyclopedia Dramatica: RationalWiki ]

Pretty much all of the POV pushers give up when they run into things like "Give us reliable sources that support your views. Until you do that we will continue to reject them. I strongly suggest that you read WP:V and WP:RS first." Given the large amount of drive-by POV pushing, an extremely short archiving frequency seems appropriate, for the same reasons that Jimbo's talk page is set to 3 days. We can always manually extent the time for those rare threads that are not pushing us to ignore what is in the sources and instead edit according to WP:OR.

No matter what we decide, I want to fix the broken archiving, which means waiting a day or two to see if the bot catches the old threads. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"there is an old thread on this talk page that has not changed from since 2 October 2015 that has not been archived" Which thread? (courtesy link to revision of this page when you said that) -- Begoon 00:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, 2 things:

• I do object to a ridiculously short archiving period. Even 14 days seems too short to me. As I said in one of my edit summaries: "3 days is a ridiculously short archiving period for an article talk page - if it has 'spurts' of activity causing usability issues you can always manually archive a big thread or two - but to remove a thread after 3 days of inactivity when some users only edit once a week, fortnight or even month is unreasonable and may easily confuse such users who will wonder where their thread went" Your "solution" of people needing to add a "Do not archive until" template to a thread which they do not want an unreasonably aggressive archive bot to "eat", and assuming that they will even know how to, or that they need to do that seems bizarrely backwards to me.
• The settings I was using come from User:Begoon/sandbox#Arc. That is there for a reason - I routinely copy those settings to dozens of talk pages as and when I notice they are needed. They invariably "work". It used to be said that the archiving template needs to be at the very top of the page code. I'm not sure how important that is these days - I've certainly seen it work when it is not at the top - but I always put it there "just in case".
• Once I realised you were "experimenting" to force an archiving "test" I apologised in my next edit summary: [25]
• We can call each other Begoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) if you really insist, but it does seem terribly formal... I've found {{U|Foo}} is usually a pretty serviceable alternative.
• Ok I said "2 things", that was 4 and this is 5, guess I lied. ttfn. -- Begoon 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...
• Ok, #6 then: It has now archived, so your present settings (7d) work, well done: I'd prefer to see at least 14d, which is still very much on the "quick" side - lots of busier article talk pages than this have periods longer than that set. A month seems reasonable to me, but let's see what others think. -- Begoon 07:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

48 hours is silly-short. The purpose of archiving is to ease navigation, not to curtail discussion. Off-topic or otherwise WP:TPG-violating posts can be reverted, collapsed, etc immediately. Auto-archival is not a substitute for that. Suggest 30 days is an appropriate age for auto-archival. VQuakr (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have set it to 30 days until I see a consensus for another number. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Let us keep it at 30 days or more. E.g I wanted to see if anybody has mentioned 4chan and KiwiFarm-like doxing on RationalWiki e.g. here:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs

and has found RS about that aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs)

That second part is wildly off-topic for this section. I don't see any evidence of doxing in the link above, but if you do find a link to actual doxing please don't post it. VQuakr (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Cpmothball redux

The text "In recent years, the website has explicitly moved its focus away from Conservapedia" has been readded to the article's lede. I would like to challenge this reentry and use of the Cpmothball template as a reference per WP:SELFPUB criteria 1, 2, and 4. The claim is self-serving because the wiki has a bad reputation for admittedly engaging in "cybervandalism" (see this LA Times article), and distancing themselves from this past is an attempt to improve the site's reputation. It does kind of involve claims about third parties, because the self-published source claims that Conservapedia (a third party) isn't interesting anymore. There is reasonable doubt about its authenticity as Conservapedia and its users are frequently discussed at WIGO CP, its talk page, and the Saloon Bar. Surely there would be a policy page on RationalWiki that could be used as a source instead of a template if this were a valid claim to include in the lede. With this being a template rather than a policy, I'd say this borders WP:PRIMARY, especially considering another template on the wiki could similarly be used to verify that Rational-Wiki has said "we don't care" if content uploaded to its servers violates copyright. Sites have been blacklisted from being linked to at all over that per WP:LINKVIO. However, official policy contradicts the silly template. Clearly the source used is not a reliable one. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki has a left-wing perspective

I've read RationalWiki for years, but I also believe very strongly in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. From an NPOV, it's pretty clear to me that RationalWiki has a left-wing perspective, and that perspective should be discussed and made clear in Wikipedia's article about it. I'm going to add a few words about RationalWiki's left-wing perspective to the summary section, and if anyone wants to revert it, you can discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8308:143:6A00:7D74:AED0:4B96:74E3 (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Source it, then you wont have problems. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 12:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I added a source. 2A02:8308:143:6A00:7D74:AED0:4B96:74E3 (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

See!!! -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 12:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

just a note on sourcing - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media Bias/Fact Check - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC) (RMF board member)

Bias

This article seem to be overly flattering of a site which has unapologetic leftist rhetoric despite calling itself "Rational" (borderline ideological falsehood), and which also practices libel against individuals (see Charlie Kirk article in the site) whose POVs it disagrees with. Besides being composed by a group of contributors who openly admit doing vandalism in other wikis (something that Wikipedia particularly dislikes). Are the standards in this mob-knowledge encyclopedia so low that now a vile platform for defamation and dishonesty is portrayed in a positive light — despite there being enough negative criticism of it out there?

Inb4: 'source the negative criticism yourself' Though strangely there was no effort to search them while the extensive research about the platform was made here, the extensive research to praise it. Lioita (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you just here to generally bemoan the state of the article, or did you have some reliably sourced improvements to suggest/discuss? -- Begoon 04:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

[Self reverted]

You seem to play that, since they make very funny jokes on both Democrats and Republicans, they are somewhat impartial. But, unbeknownst to most Americans, there is such a thing as being neither of those two, and regardless of the false dichotomy, their alignment is obviously closer to the Dems than it is to the GOP — as obvious evidence of this, you can just compare the articles of Donald Trump with Hillary Clinton, Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises, so on and so forth; the trend is clear, the only way not to see it is malicious neglect. "They stopped the vandalism on Conservapedia", yeah, as far as we/you know.

After that, you try to compare conservapedia to [ir]rationalwiki, to which I say: Your efforts sum up to "two wrongs make a right". Conservapedia is not the point of this talk, [ir]RationalWiki with its carefully weaved libel, bias, and intelectual dishonesty is.

In the end, every (clearly partial) thing you said, does not disprove anything from the original Talk post.

Lioita (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody cares. This is not a forum for complaining. Propose actionable improvements to the encyclopedia article, based on reliable sources, or move on. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

statement on breast cancer and abortion

should be reconsidered: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/medical-treatments/abortion-and-breast-cancer-risk.html. Thanks, --Gabel1960 (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

cancer.org basically says that there is no demonstrable causal link between abortion and breast cancer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Liberal" Bias

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.

---

Rationalwiki is leftist, not liberal. It criticizes liberals all the time while presenting leftists positively. This is also apparent in the length and amount of articles about leftist topics compared to liberal topics. For instance, Liberalism is a 1.6 thousand word section, on the page for the Political spectrum, while communism has an entire 8 thousand word article. I realize this is original research so I will not change the article, however this does need to be addressed Crockett623 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. My own perception is that libertarians are welcome as RationalWiki editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(COI disclosed already) Liberal is present twice in the article as quoting someone else. Reliable sources is what we go on. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, and let's not forget: RationalWiki favors criticism. So they will criticize any political ideology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2020 (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.

Somewhat significant bias

RationalWiki appears to still retain some of its liberal left roots. While understandable, I believe this should be noted. The article here seems to paint RW as a neutral viewpoint. This to me, is somewhat disconcerting. As it stands, it is more notable the more politically charged a topic the page covers.

SkynetPR

Do you have a reliable source for that, or is it just WP:OR? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the page neutral?

I honestly wonder wether we should change this page, since I think it is way too positive toward RationalWiki. I mean, RW can be reliable on some stuff (usually about science), but it is definitley unreliable on basically everything else.

• On the economy, they constantly endorse left-wing and progressive point of view, attacking everyone who supports economic liberalism;
• On politics, they are blatantly biased, attacking and insulting whoever is not aligned with the Bernie Sanders-faction of the Democrats;
• On religion, things get even worse: RationalWiki openly supports the widely rejected Christ myth theory, extensively quoting from fringe authors like Richard Carrier or Raphael Lataster.

I honestly think we should point out all these things in our page about them.--Karma1998 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: it may seem fluffy and angry, but it's the truth. If you have doubts, please read the page Historicity of Jesus. Thanks.-Karma1998 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I have. I just don't find the citation you use convincing of being included as part of the reception section, especially with the choice of adjectives. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: oh wait, I've just found out that you also work for RationalWiki. Well, that explains a lot.-Karma1998 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998, I'm having trouble finding where exactly it is in the Ehrman book that he mentions RationalWiki. Could you give a page number please? MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Ehrman was attacking suppoters of the CMT in general.-Karma1998 (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998, I think we'll need a source that specifically aims this criticism at RationalWiki to include it on this page. MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I've been waiting for someone to say that. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur, this page is blatantly biased in favour of RW. Mahie rahman (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The truth is that you need WP:RS to write something about it. I.e. the sources have to be specifically about RationalWiki, not about CMT or Sanders. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh goodness.

This page...quite possibly my least favorite page on Wikipedia. Too small, not enough info, (sources are fine). However, shouldn't there be more info about who founded this whole wiki? TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources about that, nobody will complain if you add it. The problem is probably that nobody has. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, are there not-necessarily-reliable sources where inquiring minds can find out? I'm vaguely aware of the site's mockery of the "rationalist community" (LW, SSC and such), some Wikipedia editors who are founding or activist accounts on RW, and clearly there is some overlap with the older internet crowds associated with places like talk.origins. But it would be interesting to learn more about the history. Sesquivalent (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Trent has been pretty quiet with the wiki as of late. You're more likely to find information about the current administration structure, but even then it feels like an invasion of privacy since we're not exactly public figures. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You can try that, of course, but this is not the right place for it. This page is for improving the Wikipedia article about RationalWiki, and that can only be done with reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki has a strong influence on Wikipedia pages in several topic areas, so knowing more about it is of interest to the project.

I think you have been editing long enough to know that most restrictions on material in articles, including RS, do not apply to Talk pages, and for good reason. What is not allowed in the articles can be useful and at times necessary on talk pages for ascertaining due weight and increasing editors' understanding and awareness of the subject. All of which are pertinent to "improving the Wikipedia article" . Sesquivalent (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, 'Do not use the talk page as a forum'. This isn't a place to discuss RationalWiki in general. If you're just personally curious, you can go over to RationalWiki itself and ask them whatever you like. - MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think NOTFORUM applies given the nexus of RW to a large number of Wikipedia pages (and a single sentence asserting that is hardly FORUM). If nobody has any sources to provide, the conversation here ends for lack of material. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Here is an official report of a lawsuit made against RationalWiki. What do you think? 192.107.137.243 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

We can't do anything with court documents, we'd need a newspaper or something of that ilk to report on it. - MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK pretty much all lawsuits against the site have been dismissed due to the filers not actually using a lawyer and getting dismissed due to not properly filing required documents. It's unlikely that any secondary sources exist for them. Techpriest Dominus (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The whole thing was filed and then just nothing came of it. If I read this correctly, the case was filed but the foundation was never served and the case dismissed. The filing above is an appeal, which was denied for the same reasons (failing to serve the foundation). Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Should the Snopes articles be considered self-published?

New user here. The rules say self-published sources shouldn't be used (with few exceptions). The four Snopes articles cited were all written by David Mikkelson, who's the founder and CEO, as well as a board member of Snopes Media Inc. Since Mikkelson has authority over his editors, should all Snopes articles written by him be considered self-published sources? Gonna call an admin to answer my question. How about @Adam Bishop?

This is the section in question.

"Snopes has repeatedly quoted RationalWiki for background on Sorcha Faal of the European Union Times."

Adrianmn1110 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(COI already declared) That isn't what self-published source means. SPS would mean someone's singular independent outlet, such as Jim Sterling and The Jimquisition, but not Snopes and the related team. You seem to be conflating the idea with "Owner of site writes article." Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Jerry Coyne

I removed this because I don't think the subject in question is operating within his field of expertise - originally perhaps driven too much by the headline. So I read the whole article and am now more convinced that Coyne is operating outside his domain of expertise since he's making claims about political spectrum position and theology - he's a biologist. I don't think this is an appropriate self-published source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: do you want to discuss how Coyne is qualified to discuss the tenets of Islam or the political position of Rational Wiki? I'd be happy to have the discussion rather than revert-warring. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The context of Coyne's comment is general ("I haven't used RationalWiki very much, as its articles are not only not as thorough as those in Wikipedia... but also appear slanted toward the Authoritarian Left."), not narrowly restricted to the Female Genital Mutilation or tenets of Islam. I think Coyne's direct critique is more appropriate and weighty than several current references with tangential mentions, including the preceding vapid definition lifted from a PhD thesis. Aside from a biologist, Coyne is a prominent critic known for writing, blogging and commenting on science, religion, and culture (author of Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible). Journalist Oliver Burkeman called him "the atheist blogosphere's Victor Meldrew". He also gives a positive hat tip to RationalWiki here. As a public intellectual his views are warranted (but of course should not be given undue weight), as there is a relative dearth of sources that actually critique the website in any meaningful way (positive or negative). Most of the "Reception" heading is not reception at all, but rather trivial name dropping of mentions or uses. AKA padding and show-and-tellism. More views are needed to ensure WP:NPOV. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

References

PR Firm's opinion

There's no indication that any third parties have reported on (or expressed any interest in whatsoever in) Navigator Ltd's self published opinion. It should be excluded. MrOllie (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. See WP:SPS for when self-published expert opinions are acceptable. Also, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. It's fine if this kind of opinion is under the "Reception" heading. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

An unsigned blog post on a PR firm's site obviously does not qualify as 'an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' it doesn't even have a byline. - MrOllie (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you even know even know what PR is? They study how things affect public opinion, which is what their review of RW was about. Their work has been published in the Financial Post Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I don't see how it is enyclopedic without third-party references demonstrating such value, which I don't believe the Financial Post link above does. --Hipal (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit war over academic-sourced material

There appears to be some edit warring (earlier draft and latest revert) between some regulars and IP and new user. I want to provide a third opinion to what's being said in the comments. The problem is not that you consider these authors to be WP:FRINGE (which in most cases you apply not to an author but to a piece of research, and as such I can't see how this particular paper is at all controversial relative to any other classify-and-count-websites study), but rather that these papers are not being properly used as sources.

When a research study is cited there is the implication that the reader will assume it is used as a primary source, and that what is being cited is what is demonstrated in the study. In the Intelligence paper the source is from the author's speculation in the "Discussion" section, and is not part of the conclusions. In the First Monday paper the article implies an inaccurate interpretation of the term "debunking". It's actually a good example of why you shouldn't pick-and-choose data from within a study to talk about in your article, and just restrict yourself to the abstract and conclusions. Thus all the content being disputed should be removed. Hopefully this helps tone things down. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. How does that justify removing the content sourced to the First Monday paper? If the quarrel is with whether that paper's use of "debunking" to mean "openly attack[ing] the conspiracy theory as unsound, unsubstantiated, implausible, illogical, or ridiculous", then why not simply edit the description of that statement to clarify? XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you can write your explanation of how "debunking" was assessed with regard to RationalWiki here, maybe as you would plan to in the article, and we can see if you have accurately represented the paper. I still think it's insane to reference anything from a single study not mentioned in the abstract or conclusions, but I'm curious. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

They looked at RationalWiki, found it qualitatively similar to Snopes, and decided to call both of them "debunking" sites. What's unclear about that? We could just say "categorized RationalWiki as similar in tone to Snopes". Easy peasy.

There's no reason to restrict attention to the abstract and conclusions; the stuff in the middle does generally have a purpose, or nobody would write it. And it's not "cherry picking" to select the part of a source that talks about the topic at hand. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The researcher manually classified the individual webpages. The point of the paper is to demonstrate some analytical tools and make an observation about search engine biases. Table 6 only ranks site search-engine visibility (in this particular sampling, not to be generalized) and categorizes them by essentially the same categories the researcher put them in at the outset. This researcher's qualitative impression of what page belongs in what category is not what the paper is being peer-reviewed on. It is not even within that researcher's field of study (from a quick look they are a nat sci quant). SamuelRiv (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A manual classification of a website is still a perfectly valid datum to cite. It's not our job to speculate what peer reviewers did or did not write. Nor is it such an arcane claim that only a supremely specialized specialist could be trusted to make it. XOR'easter (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is roughly like taking a neural net paper and then referencing a sample of their training data as if the authors positively endorsed it. I actually don't know what else to say because it seems like you are disputing this for its own sake. You can take it to my talk page if you like. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Rational?

This article needs to address the fact that rationalwiki is actually a libel machine filled of insults toward conservatives and incredibly biased. I think it should be clearer that it's not a source to be considered rational or trustworthy. Alves Stargazer (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITE WP:RS to that effect. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia talk pages aren't places to complain about the article subject. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: SJWiki (on February 12, 2023)

Should SJWiki be added in a subsection? (SJWiki Cited, RW’s SJWiki, Wiki’s About) - 216.49.130.3 (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, because it is unrelated to this article. - Roxy the dog 11:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits to lead

Re: [26] Even if we were to assume the source is a good one (I am not sure it is) I cannot find these claims in the cited source, so I think it fails verification anyway. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hid the controversial text before discussion. Could you describe and explain your claims to the text beyond "this is bad, I don't like it"? This could greatly solve the problem. I also don't think that taking one side and removing the controversial text can be called a neutral position. This is a direct occupation of one of the parties to the dispute. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I just did. The claims being made are not found in the cited source. MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are you only talking about this now after my cancellation and only when another user posted about it? Solaire the knight (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

UPD. It's--it's just not true. I did a cursory search of the specified text on the page and it found all the statements made. This does not negate the question of the authority of the source and the correctness of the formulations used by the user, but the assertion that the source does not contain these statements is simply easily refuted. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It really doesn't, see below. MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

What exactly? The user accused the resource of slandering right-wing or "potentially" right-wing scientists, the article contains cases of this. What exactly isn't there? Solaire the knight (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

RationalWiki banned the user in question for that stuff, and a few cases (where the perpetrator got banned) does not translate to 'It is known for its lax editorial standards and hosting defamatory content' any more than the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident would translate into Wikipedia being known for hosting defamatory content. MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you are talking about it. Well, I already mentioned this when I said that the mentioned facts are mentioned in the source, but this does not remove the issue of wording. Then what prevents the text from being transferred to another part of the article and reformulated? Solaire the knight (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with this. Break down the larger sentence into a bunch of individual sentences to avoid synthesis, and attribute to the specific source DuxEgregius (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia at least tries to take down bad information posted by trolls, content that's defamatory toward living people. The article is about how RationalWiki doesn't have those standards. DuxEgregius (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a huge leap from the analysis of one individual to stating "It is known for...." CIreland (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, why then did you delete the entire text, indicating only part of it, and not move it to another place and reformulate it? Solaire the knight (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There are two reasons I originally deleted the text originally. The first one was because the source was hardly NPOV, and also did not include counterarguments from the accused (such as Oliver Smith or Rationalwiki). Without any balance, therefore, this violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The other reason is that I feel that this is not terribly notable. If we want to document the entire history of the Oliver Smith vs. "race realists" drama on Rationalwiki, I suppose it could be done, but generally I thought Wikipedia is really not the place for this sort of thing. I have found no other citations for Oliver Smith (in the context of Rationalwiki) except for this City Journal article. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is necessary, since Smith not only admitted the existence of such activity on his part, but also directly fought for its justification. In any case, I still don't see any reason why we can't describe it in the theoretical "criticism" section as an accusation from one of the resources? Not to mention the fact that the resource as a whole has a rather rich history of criticism as a liberal analogue of Conservopedia. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Both reasons are inadequate. NPOV is the ideal standard of Wikipedia content, and applies to basically nothing outside of it. If the City Journal isn't authoritative (and I'm very open to the idea that it isn't) then just attribute its claims in-text and describe them as "allegations"

In no way did I "document the entire history of the Oliver Smith vs. "race realists" drama on Rationalwiki." I put in one sentence about RationalWiki's hosting of defamatory content and its poor mechanisms to rectify it. In particular, the way that the site has been able to host libel for many years with de-facto immunity for both users and the Foundation itself seems pretty noteworthy to me. DuxEgregius (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you prove "defamatory content" though? This is a strong word and one should think before flailing this around.

Googling, I only see one defamation case seemingly actually filed against Oliver Smith, Kirkegaard v Smith. From what I can tell, Kirkegaard actually lost that case. Same for Rationalwiki, I can only find one case so far (Kent E. Hovind). That case was dismissed.

In other words, legally, there seems to be little basis for your claim. It does not seem like there has been an actual successful defamation lawsuit against the RationalWiki Foundation or Oliver Smith that I can find. So, basically, I would take issue with phrases like "defamatory content" and "slander". RW has a strong point of view and is opinionated, but that is not the same level as defamation. Wikipedia even has been sued for defamation, but just because a couple people have (usually unsuccessfully) does not mean I would leap to the conclusion that Wikipedia hosts "defamatory content". Soundwave106 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I used the term "defamatory content" because the source refers to "defamatory articles" and contains statements like " In general, people libeled on RationalWiki pages are left with no legal recourse."

Looking up defamation cases and coming to our own conclusions about them represents Original Research, covered under WP:NOR. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before editing articles and participating in Talk Page discussions. DuxEgregius (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a more neutral source for the claim "in general, people libeled on RationalWiki pages are left with no legal recourse"? Rationalwiki has a policy for defamatory material and beyond that policy, this statement seems strange anyways. Rationalwiki is not the law and there is nothing stopping one from suing the RationalWiki foundation for libel (if a valid cases exists). Soundwave106 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Please just read the article. It's very tiring to discuss a source with someone who clearly hasn't engaged with it at all. DuxEgregius (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I have read the article. Again, the problem with the article is that this source is not neutral at all. This is not a problem if sources are found with counterarguments for balance, but the severe slant of the article makes judging conclusions by this alone problematic. Most of the people in the article are not notable so it's tough to compare, but compare the Wikipedia article on Noah Carl with the City Journal article. There are multiple reasons that led to the Carl appointment controversy, but the City Journal article glosses over almost all of them. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Why base your critique on the least substantive part of the edit? You could have easily changed that to "It has been alleged ..." DuxEgregius (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Because I'm not convinced that one article detailing the campaign of one individual constitutes due weight. We wouldn't do the same on other platforms hosting user-generated content without multiple sources having covered it: that such platforms are susceptible to abuse is unremarkable. If there are multiple sources for the proposed content, then I could be convinced that something could be added to the body. Equally, if we could adequately source that RationalWiki as a platform for user-generated content is susceptible to misuse, I wouldn't be opposed to adding that either. CIreland (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you think that the systematic use of the resource to harass and slander a number of scientists on the basis of ideological reasons is not significant, because only one source writes about this, although this is an objective fact that even the accused himself does not deny? Solaire the knight (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote above: "In particular, the way that the site has been able to host libel for many years with de-facto immunity for both users and the Foundation itself seems pretty noteworthy to me."

Please read the article in full. DuxEgregius (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

As to where I found the info from the original edit in the article:

Hosting defamatory content with poor corrective mechanisms:

"Legal action might appear an attractive solution. But like the Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia, the RationalMedia Foundation claims no responsibility for the material that it hosts. According to the site’s legal FAQ, defamatory statements in articles must be dealt with by using the site’s internal community processes, such as by raising the issues on article talk pages, and the members of RationalWiki tend to be dismissive of such attempts. After making several unsuccessful attempts to remove such content, one member of RationalWiki commented, “It appears to me that the effect and likely intent of the policies (as enforced) is to retain defamatory content except in the most egregious cases, and to generally be biased against removing such content."

"These circumstances give RationalWiki’s articles a unique legal status. If neither the RationalMedia Foundation nor its individual users can be held legally responsible for the contents of articles there, for practical purposes these articles have legal impunity. In general, people libeled on RationalWiki pages are left with no legal recourse."

" The site administrator proposing the ban argued that, by doing this, Smith was trying to shift legal responsibility onto the site’s other users who voted to retain the defamatory articles."

Targeting academics and intelligence researchers:

"An online war, led by a British national named Oliver D. Smith, has targeted the field of intelligence research. His campaign, abetted by a user-controlled website’s negligent policies, has led to devastating professional consequences for a number of academics working in this area. Most people are accustomed to online disinformation and cancel culture, but Smith is unique for combining both weapons against his perceived enemies."

Lax editorial standards:

"Despite this, Smith has gone to greater lengths than any other RationalWiki user to try to keep this parody material out of articles there, likely because it exposes RationalWiki’s low standards for article content. Ironically, on articles related to human intelligence at Wikipedia, most of Willoughby’s recent activity has been opposing another likely parody account, whose behavior closely parallels the accounts that Smith has opposed at RationalWiki."

So before the discussion goes on any further, we should all be able to agree that the edit I made originally accords pretty closely to the statements made in the source. DuxEgregius (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but wikipedia is not the place to seek justice. If you have any complaints about potential libel on a resource, then Wikipedia is not the place to fight it. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "seeking justice," I've never been defamed by anyone. DuxEgregius (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I mention this because it seems that your discussion is more about the project itself than about writing an article about it. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to provide evidence for my statement based on the source. I've never had any personal run-ins with any of the organizations or individuals in question. DuxEgregius (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Those quotes say something substantially different from what you wrote in the article. The cited source is about Smith's attempts to use RationalWiki for libel and getting banned for it, context which changes the meaning of your selective quotes quite a bit. And in any case, this is an opinion piece published by a conservative think tank, not really a usable source on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is about Smith's successful use of RationWiki for libel and the site's continued hosting of his content. It's quite clear in the source that Smith's bans are poorly enforced and his content is basically never taken down.

As to the source being a think tank we could always attribute its claims in the article here. DuxEgregius (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you are denying the source usefulness on the basis of its conservative political views? Solaire the knight (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you do not understand correctly. Think tanks and opinion articles aren't useful for statements of fact on Wikipedia regardless of political affiliation. It doesn't really help that the article seems to support well known scientific racists, either, I suppose, but that is less a problem of political views than a disconnection with reality. MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's a possible compromise. Instead of this being stated as a fact, "It is known for its lax editorial standards..." it could instead be attributed to the specific source, "An analysis by the Manhattan Institute concluded that..." That seems to be how Wikipedia usually handles sources published by think tanks, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. 24.246.138.48 (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. The SPLC is treated that way because their stuff gets picked up and repeated by other sources. That's not the case for the Manhattan Institute. We cannot just ignore other concerns by adding 'X concludes' in front. We wouldn't write 'The Flat earth society concludes that the earth is flat', for example. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This argument is kind of absurd on its face since the claim as originally proposed would depend on WP:SYNTH regardless. The City Journal article argues if someone were libeled on Rational Wiki they would not have legal recourse - not that this is a common feature of Rational Wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH, given the description you linked to, seems to be about combining different sources and not paraphrasing the (very explicit) points of a single source. If you're concerned about synthesis then we could provide full quotes; originally I didn't do this for the sake of brevity.

For example:

David Zimmerman argues in the conservative City Journal that, "In general, people libeled on RationalWiki pages are left with no legal recourse."

The ability to host defamatory content for years without consequence, even as such content has "devastating professional consequences for a number of academics," would seem to be one of the most interesting and important aspects of any website.

User:MrOllie I'm afraid you're making up criteria. Wikipedia cites vetted sources for factual claims, while opinions and material from not-as-well-vetted sources are given in-text attributions. Organizations that are known to malignantly make stuff up and lie (like InfoWars) are banned altogether, but there's no indication that City Journal falls in this latter category. The other supporters of inclusion and I have all agreed to add in-text attribution, as I wrote above. I've also never heard of Think Tanks specifically being cordoned-off as unciteable, where did you get that idea? DuxEgregius (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't list every opinion that exists just because it is in a source somewhere, and we don't pull factual claims from opinion articles by using attribution as a fig leaf. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my, unanswered, concern that the statement is synthesizing this opinion with an unknown source to attempt to state as fact that RationalWiki regularly hosts libel, there is, as MrOllie rightly pointed out, the question of WP:DUE - this article is ultimately the opinion of an editorial writer. How is this due inclusion? Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

What is this wall of bickering even about?

Are we seriously bickering about whether the home of User:Keegscee and former home of User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (whom they made a board member despite him admittedly being a troll) is a quality resource? Go with what the reliable sources say, apply Wikipedia policy, and leave person opinions out of it. For what it’s worth, the whole wiki should be blacklisted from being linked to on Wikipedia because it contains content produced by office banned users, and could therefore be used to circumvent those users bans. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, we are not talking whether Rationalwiki is a quality source. We are talking about whether a City Journal article and the claims mentioned in it are worth including.--2600:4040:475E:F600:9C13:D2F:8DFD:8B6E (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

City Journal is the in-house publication of the Manhattan Institute. It lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is therefore not a WP:RS for statements of fact; think tanks and their publications are not automatically reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a good question to be answered by WP:RSN. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Bringing an obvious opinion article to RSN seems like a waste of the community's time to me, since you'll just get the same answer as every other time opinion articles are brought there. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The City Journal article is a bad source for many reasons. For one, to comply with BLP it would either have to be so vague as to be useless and distracting, or we would have to add so much context that it would introduce due weight and/or original research issues.

For another, it is not plausible that the City Journal source isn't being intentionally misleading by its many, many omissions. It's not difficult, for example, to find examples of Quillette whitewashing racist pseudoscience, but Zimmerman dismisses this description as "somewhat comical" without any explanation or follow-up.

The argument has been repeatedly made (here's one example with some familiar names) that this pattern of behavior is all part of a misleading persecution complex from the 'human biodiversity movement'. From that perspective, the City Journal's avoidance of context isn't a mistake, it's the entire point.

These are all bad signs for a source in an encyclopedia article, even with attribution. I think I may have cited City Journal in the past, and this article is so bad it makes me rethink that. Grayfell (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur with this evaluation of the City Journal item; it's a far cry from a usable source. (RationalWiki itself is also not a source we can use for most purposes, but no one is arguing that it is.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Noting here, since PCHS-NJROTC didn't, that they opened a section on RSN about this at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#City_Journal_as_a_source_covering_RationalWiki. - MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Noting here, CJ has in fact deleted the article in question (https://www.city-journal.org/article/an-online-campaign-against-intelligence-research). It was that good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.54 (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think its worth mentioning to the that User:PCHS-NJROTC on their user page says they are an admin on Conservapedia which is often called the ideological opponent of Rationalwiki, so may not have been neutral in trying to get the source in the article. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that you say that I am trying to get the source in the article when I have suggested that the source be WP:Deprecated at RS/N. That said, I never have claimed to be neutral about RationalWiki, in fact if you look above I have declared a connection, and I have no qualms about declaring WP:SPADE on it: RationalWiki is a troll farm not only for Conservapedia vandals but also numerous troublemakers on Wikipedia. In fact, I would not have known about RationalWiki or Conservapedia if not someone from RW being disruptive on WP. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

As a moderator on RationalWiki and a member of the RationalWiki Board of Trustees I will plainly state that RationalWiki does not encourage or condone the vandalism of other websites. People who vandalized Wikipedia in 2010 are not typical of RationalWiki editors in 2023. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent blanking

I do hope that nobody has opposition to this edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That was removing all positive references to RationalWiki and keeping all the negative ones. That's not being fair or balanced. That's just wrong. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, you can let me know which one of the refs that I had kept was negative? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I had removed the lone negative coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This has come up before. To revisit what I said in 2017, regardless of whether or not they are positive or negative, I'm not really sure what these sources are accomplishing. Being quoted in some other source isn't automatically significant. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you! TrangaBellam (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I missed some in my first round of trimming. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Using Intelligence as a reference

I have reverted the edit for failing to cite RS:

1. To quote from our article on the journal:

   According to the New Statesman in 2018, the "journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field" but has allowed its reputation "to be used to launder or legitimate racist pseudo-science". Smithsonian Magazine called it "a more respected psychology journal", but stated that it has "occasionally included papers with pseudoscientific findings about intelligence differences between races." It has been criticized for having included on its editorial board biochemist Gerhard Meisenberg and psychologist Richard Lynn, both of whom are promoters of eugenics and scientific racism.

2. To quote from our article on the first author:

   An investigation by St. Edmund's College concluded that Carl's work was "poor scholarship" which violated standards of academic integrity, and that Carl had collaborated with right-wing extremists. [He was] subsequently dismissed from his position as a Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellow.

3. The third author, an "unpaid researcher" at UVB, was summarily suspended after his works made to the manifesto of a white supremacist mass-shooter. Prior, he appears to have worn many hats of which the most significant was that of a cryptozoologist. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That particular study has been referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia. The journal has impact factor of 3, which is good. Furthermore the study was cited 8 times. This is a very weak objection, and in fact you yourself are undermining it by citing "journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field", which it is as shown by the impact factor. Also, you just referenced Wikipedia to attack a scientific journal. WP:CW You probably shouldn't be citing Wikipedia.185.252.182.89 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if Carl and Woodley's paper was reliable or significant, which it is not, that summary of the source was unacceptably vague and loaded. It's tempting to explain why that source is so poor for this, such as the ways it misinterprets its own mostly-terrible sources, or how the authors takes an obviously biased position in favor of those researchers without even hinting at the possibility that some or all of these "controversies" might be justified, or how they fail to disclose their own conflict of interest by labeling recent controversies as the "LCI Era" without mentioning their own involvement. For goodness sake, they name a period the "Rushton Era" without ever even attempting to explain who J. Philippe Rushton was, or any reason why he was controversial. It's all just lazy scientism.

But none of that is even necessary. At a bare minimum, this would have to be clearly attributed to Carl and Woodley from 2019, and for that to make sense to readers, we would have to briefly explain who those people are and their involvement in scientific racism, and at that point, why even bother? It's just a very verbose, pretentious way of getting to WP:MANDY. That's just a flimsy excuse to add WP:WEASEL words. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the only other use of this source on Wikipedia that I found was at Arthur Jensen. That was added by a user who was blocked specifically for tendentious pro-fringe editing on race and intelligence articles. I have removed that source from that article for obvious reasons. As always, the use of a bad source on one article is not an excuse to use it at another article.

Incidentally, the Jensen edit looked familiar, and I think I had removed similar wording using that source from other articles in the past. If you find any other uses of this source please feel free to let me know, or remove it, or both. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Good call, Grayfell. As always we should aim to cite academics in good standing and remove references by those who have revealed themselves to be unreliable. Generalrelative (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think the references in that study are "mostly terrible", it references a lot of established studies and researchers, some of them are controversial, but far from "mostly terrible". The expectation of them elaborating on who all of the controversial researchers are seems misplaced as all of the researchers ranked in that study are controversial.

I was under the impression that the tone I wrote that paragraph in is not unusual for Wikipedia if it is directly reporting what somebody said, which the paragraph was with a minor variation. But it can be written using softer words, it's not a problem.

I have no problem with mentioning a criticism of Woodley, you see it as a problem but as far as I can see it is not unusual for Wikipedia to mention a controversial figure and then provide a criticism of him, it's not a problem to mention his support for eugenics and the notion of racial differences in intelligence.

Related to what the other person said here, I don't know if you agree with that sentiment but Wikipedia shouldn't at all limit itself to citing researchers considered to be in good standing. It's not practiced, Lynn is widely cited both in the scientific world and on Wiki, and he is known for his support for eugenics and racist statements, but also other racist figures are accepted. For example nobody has a problem with citing Voltaire who was extremely racist by modern standards, he didn't consider black people to be human. Ultimately the only reliable indicator of whether a researcher is actually in good standing is whether he has committed scientific fraud and whether his studies were retracted on that basis. Discussion of racism is not a reliable indicator of good standing in science, and as far as a particular study is concerned it's influence is measured by the number of citations, which it has quite a lot. 185.252.182.89 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As I specifically said, we don't even need to talk about how terrible the source itself is, it wouldn't belong anyway. Comparing Richard Lynn to Voltaire is such over-the-top whataboutism that I cannot tell if you're just trolling or not. But yes, the source's sources are mostly crap. Mankind Quarterly, OpenPsych, Quillette (multiple times), not to mention a veritable who's who of fringe HBD apologists, including an actual, non-Godwin's law neo-nazi Roger Pearson who was self-publishing at that point, and more. It's trash and its sources are (mostly) trash. Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Out of 42 sources that are listed I have found 3 from Quillette and 1 from Mankind Quarterly. We can also add the single source from Pearson, that would be 5. That's "mostly crap" for you, you are clearly making things up. Both Voltaire and Lynn were academics, that's enough to make a comparison.

Also, you must have confused Psych journal with OpenPsych, a terrible mistake. 185.252.182.89 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Look, you are wasting your time here. This is an article published by a couple of people who push racist pseudoscience complaining about outlets that correctly identify their stuff as racist pseudoscience. They published it as 'Correspondence' in one of the very few outlets that still allows the publishing of racist pseudoscience. We're not going to pretend it is an independent source we can use for this article. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

When I said "and more" I meant it. As I said, it's a who's who of fringe HBD figures. The article in the MDPI-published pseudo-journal Psych from 2019 was written by Gerhard Meisenberg, who was a main contributor to OpenPsych. OpenPsych had stopped published in 2018 and didn't resume until 2021, which was after MDPI had attempted to clean-up Psych. Calling this a "terrible mistake" is just trying give undue credibility to the OpenPsych crowd's botched attempt at a public relations stunt. Grayfell (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

All of this misses the point. The 2023-08-03 edit in question is in wikivoice saying "RW has been criticized" while only citing a single paper that's not primarily about RW, and only mentions the site in the Discussion section (the part of a paper that's relatively free from being bounded by the facts of the actual research), and notes its relevance only "by virtue of conflation with Wikipedia". In other words, it's just an author taking the piss. If those authors are particularly notable, then you could quote them, but it's highly inappropriate to confuse what's being written there with some rigorous and replicated research. All of this is independent of whether or not the journal is good or the paper is good. (Again, the entire quote on RW is completely separate from the research in the paper and even the lit review.)

This articles still misuses research papers in several ways in several other sections by the way, and is far from alone on WP in this regard. As a reminder, quantitative research in a paper is WP:PRIMARY. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

[27] This is unsourced. We cannot pick stuff about the subject that we personally find interesting - secondary sources need to take notice, and then we cite those. Yes, in RationalWiki is works differently, but here it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I just tried to revert them but they were already reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that was me and I second your point. Generalrelative (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)