Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

What's wrong with RationalWiki?

Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 3:44:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 1:09:46 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Besides blatant biasness?

Thank you for that insight into circular reasoning.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 3:48:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 3:44:08 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 7/27/2014 1:09:46 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Besides blatant biasness?

Thank you for that insight into circular reasoning.

It is really biased. Albeit substantially more accurate than any creationist fuelled wiki.. It is still very biased. Given that I don't want people citing conservapedia in my debates, I respond in kind and don't cite rationalwiki.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 4:07:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 3:48:52 AM, Envisage wrote:
It is really biased. Albeit substantially more accurate than any creationist fuelled wiki.. It is still very biased. Given that I don't want people citing conservapedia in my debates, I respond in kind and don't cite rationalwiki.
Ok that makes sense, it's biased on the subject of creation; therefore is best not used on related subjects.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 4:43:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 4:07:43 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 7/27/2014 3:48:52 AM, Envisage wrote:
It is really biased. Albeit substantially more accurate than any creationist fuelled wiki.. It is still very biased. Given that I don't want people citing conservapedia in my debates, I respond in kind and don't cite rationalwiki.
Ok that makes sense, it's biased on the subject of creation; therefore is best not used on related subjects.

I mean when you see their FSM article begin with:

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the FSM for those too lazy to type out His whole name, is the obvious source of all Order, Logic, and Morality in the Universe, the above being easily apparent to those who have been touched by His nudely noodly appendage. "

Then it's clear it's not objective.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 4:47:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I find their information on fallacies both good, and memorable...

But yeah, that's some highly inaccurate information on the FSM. The source for beer yes, but not order, as he was quite drunk (and not smart to begin with) when he created everything.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 5:06:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

It's about as reliable as Conservapedia. It has a very, very sizable left-wing atheist slant.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 5:25:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 5:06:22 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

It's about as reliable as Conservapedia. It has a very, very sizable left-wing atheist slant.

I don't think I'd equate them...I don't think there are articles on RationalWiki, for example, that claim conservatives are fat.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 6:01:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 5:25:10 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2014 5:06:22 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

It's about as reliable as Conservapedia. It has a very, very sizable left-wing atheist slant.

I don't think I'd equate them...I don't think there are articles on RationalWiki, for example, that claim conservatives are fat.

RationalWiki can get just as ridiculous, just in a different way.
XLAV
Posts: 13,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 10:06:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

RationalWiki was created by an old and controversial member of DDO, RationalMadman, hence the controversiality of the wiki.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 2:02:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 10:06:13 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

RationalWiki was created by an old and controversial member of DDO, RationalMadman, hence the controversiality of the wiki.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 2:57:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 10:06:13 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

RationalWiki was created by an old and controversial member of DDO, RationalMadman, hence the controversiality of the wiki.

Seriously? Or just a joke?
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 3:20:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's not that rationalwiki is biased, but that it's run in a jerkish manner.

There's nothing wrong with providing a perspective on issues as long as you back them up and engage in honest debate.

The problem with rationalwiki is the entire point is to provoke "rationalists" (a la followers of Descartes who is associated with right-wing thought due to his focus on free will and a priori reason) into participating and then just make fun of them.

The weird thing about this, however, is that many conservatives actually don't support rational thought at all. They're fatalists who believe in anti-intellectualism where the goal of society is to preserve the social status of those who are lucky while opposing free will in order to inhibit social mobility.

Frankly, the website seems run by right-wingers in left-winger clothing who just enjoy bullying honest right-wingers.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 2:41:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I must agree they are pretty jerkish... Yet their list of logical fallacies seems more complete, and well written. Gish Gallop for example: http://rationalwiki.org...
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 2:52:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, for starters it was written by Liberal Anti-Christian Atheists who bash everything Conservative and/or Christian. There's nothing rational about it, and it's just as bad as Conservapedia.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Zexcoiler_Kingbolt
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 5:00:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2014 4:43:46 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/27/2014 4:07:43 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 7/27/2014 3:48:52 AM, Envisage wrote:
It is really biased. Albeit substantially more accurate than any creationist fuelled wiki.. It is still very biased. Given that I don't want people citing conservapedia in my debates, I respond in kind and don't cite rationalwiki.
Ok that makes sense, it's biased on the subject of creation; therefore is best not used on related subjects.

I mean when you see their FSM article begin with:

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the FSM for those too lazy to type out His whole name, is the obvious source of all Order, Logic, and Morality in the Universe, the above being easily apparent to those who have been touched by His nudely noodly appendage. "

Then it's clear it's not objective.

If you ever read the RationalWiki Mission Statement, it states we aren't some dry encyclopedia like Wikipedia. There is no NPOV, only SPOV (Snarky Point of View), yet it looks like you might've not noticed or stumbled into the Fun:Flying Spaghetti Monster article, not the actually formal article...
I eated the purple berries.</em

"It's not in our culture to be poor, that's only been the last 500 years of our history; look at the last 2,000 years of our existence, and what we brought to the world in terms of science, mathematics, agriculture, and forms of government."

Mexico is a corrupt state, I honestly stand with Kate del Castillo and trust El Chapo more than the tyranny and reign of Pena Nieto and his corrupt government. A new revolution is needed to liberate our Peop
Zexcoiler_Kingbolt
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 5:01:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2014 2:52:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Well, for starters it was written by Liberal Anti-Christian Atheists who bash everything Conservative and/or Christian. There's nothing rational about it, and it's just as bad as Conservapedia.

Soooo, Conservapedia and A Storehouse of Knowledge and CreationWiki are rational?
I eated the purple berries.</em

"It's not in our culture to be poor, that's only been the last 500 years of our history; look at the last 2,000 years of our existence, and what we brought to the world in terms of science, mathematics, agriculture, and forms of government."

Mexico is a corrupt state, I honestly stand with Kate del Castillo and trust El Chapo more than the tyranny and reign of Pena Nieto and his corrupt government. A new revolution is needed to liberate our Peop
Zexcoiler_Kingbolt
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 5:05:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2014 3:20:04 PM, Daktoria wrote:
It's not that rationalwiki is biased, but that it's run in a jerkish manner.

There's nothing wrong with providing a perspective on issues as long as you back them up and engage in honest debate.

The problem with rationalwiki is the entire point is to provoke "rationalists" (a la followers of Descartes who is associated with right-wing thought due to his focus on free will and a priori reason) into participating and then just make fun of them.

The weird thing about this, however, is that many conservatives actually don't support rational thought at all. They're fatalists who believe in anti-intellectualism where the goal of society is to preserve the social status of those who are lucky while opposing free will in order to inhibit social mobility.

Frankly, the website seems run by right-wingers in left-winger clothing who just enjoy bullying honest right-wingers.

No. Almost everyone is liberal, or center, or mildly conservative. The users you're referencing are either trolls or actual Conservapedia editors who managed to wreak havoc on the site (MC, TK a few years back, and -Mona-, Mikemikev, et al. on the Zionism and GamerGate shitfest). And those BoNs, too.
I eated the purple berries.</em

"It's not in our culture to be poor, that's only been the last 500 years of our history; look at the last 2,000 years of our existence, and what we brought to the world in terms of science, mathematics, agriculture, and forms of government."

Mexico is a corrupt state, I honestly stand with Kate del Castillo and trust El Chapo more than the tyranny and reign of Pena Nieto and his corrupt government. A new revolution is needed to liberate our Peop
GreenTeas1
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 8:14:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The vandalism on Rationalwiki since at least 2010 is by Mikemikev, he's trolled the site on hundreds of sockpuppets, also impersonating other people.

[Link removed by moderator for containing inappropriate advertisements]
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 9:15:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 5:01:21 AM, Zexcoiler_Kingbolt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 2:52:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Well, for starters it was written by Liberal Anti-Christian Atheists who bash everything Conservative and/or Christian. There's nothing rational about it, and it's just as bad as Conservapedia.

Soooo, Conservapedia and A Storehouse of Knowledge and CreationWiki are rational?

I didn't say that these websites weren't biased; what I said is that RW is just as bad. It is extremely anti-theistic and it portrays all theists as retards.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Zexcoiler_Kingbolt
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 7:45:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 9:15:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/22/2015 5:01:21 AM, Zexcoiler_Kingbolt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 2:52:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Well, for starters it was written by Liberal Anti-Christian Atheists who bash everything Conservative and/or Christian. There's nothing rational about it, and it's just as bad as Conservapedia.

Soooo, Conservapedia and A Storehouse of Knowledge and CreationWiki are rational?

I didn't say that these websites weren't biased; what I said is that RW is just as bad. It is extremely anti-theistic and it portrays all theists as retards.

Yeah. Those users are the rare ones, actually. Some of the Sysops there are of different religions, not just atheists, and the really horrible ones either got de-sysopped or banned (TK, MarcusCicero, Mikemikev).

As long as an article is factual and backs the claim up, it's fine, but occasionally another troll will come along and start a huge controversy that slows the entire wiki. Case in point: Ryulong.

Occasionally there are pages praising theists, but we insult the majority of them since they deny climate change, promote fake medicine (looking at you, Mike Savage), or just condemn other religions for being extremists when they're being extremist, too.
I eated the purple berries.</em

"It's not in our culture to be poor, that's only been the last 500 years of our history; look at the last 2,000 years of our existence, and what we brought to the world in terms of science, mathematics, agriculture, and forms of government."

Mexico is a corrupt state, I honestly stand with Kate del Castillo and trust El Chapo more than the tyranny and reign of Pena Nieto and his corrupt government. A new revolution is needed to liberate our Peop
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 7:52:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 7:45:59 PM, Zexcoiler_Kingbolt wrote:
At 10/31/2015 9:15:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/22/2015 5:01:21 AM, Zexcoiler_Kingbolt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 2:52:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Well, for starters it was written by Liberal Anti-Christian Atheists who bash everything Conservative and/or Christian. There's nothing rational about it, and it's just as bad as Conservapedia.

Soooo, Conservapedia and A Storehouse of Knowledge and CreationWiki are rational?

I didn't say that these websites weren't biased; what I said is that RW is just as bad. It is extremely anti-theistic and it portrays all theists as retards.

Yeah. Those users are the rare ones, actually. Some of the Sysops there are of different religions, not just atheists, and the really horrible ones either got de-sysopped or banned (TK, MarcusCicero, Mikemikev).

As long as an article is factual and backs the claim up, it's fine,

Some of the world's most biased intellectual trash has been fully factually-substantiated. It's all about rhetorical skew and cherry-picking which facts you want to mention.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:09:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

It's the liberal version of Conservapedia.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:24:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 8:09:09 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

It's the liberal version of Conservapedia.

I think the difference is that they try and sell themselves as more "logical" than any other liberal wiki. Stuff like conservapedia don't even try to hide there bias. They know they're based and so would you. But Rational Wikipedia tries to make itself seem more smart by not admitting it's bias. A real real liberal equivalent to conservapedia would be this liberalpedia, because they're open about they're biases.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 2:51:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 8:24:34 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:09:09 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

It's the liberal version of Conservapedia.

But Rational Wikipedia tries to make itself seem more smart by not admitting it's bias.

"RationalWiki does not use Wikipedia's well-known "Neutral Point of View"-http://rationalwiki.org...

Yeah they're sure not admitting bias alright.....
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 5:16:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 2:51:06 AM, n7 wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:24:34 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:09:09 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:36:28 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. I was recently informed that RationalWiki is somehow controversial.

It's the liberal version of Conservapedia.

But Rational Wikipedia tries to make itself seem more smart by not admitting it's bias.

"RationalWiki does not use Wikipedia's well-known "Neutral Point of View"-http://rationalwiki.org...

Yeah they're sure not admitting bias alright.....

Okay, maybe not :/. I assumed that by calling itself "Rational" they were selling themselves as unbiased.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 9:13:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
We all have to get our information from somewhere and more and more is coming from the internet. Settling on an opinion means deciding another opinion is wrong so maybe fence-sitting on everything is the most sensible attitude.
Often we have already decided what we think ( its called maturity).
The only sensible answer is to look at different sources.
The question of experts and consensus is important for a layman ; but we are a laymen in many things.
I look at what different experts are saying and if there is no consenus the question is open.
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 5:01:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 9:15:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/22/2015 5:01:21 AM, Zexcoiler_Kingbolt wrote:
At 7/29/2014 2:52:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Well, for starters it was written by Liberal Anti-Christian Atheists who bash everything Conservative and/or Christian. There's nothing rational about it, and it's just as bad as Conservapedia.

Soooo, Conservapedia and A Storehouse of Knowledge and CreationWiki are rational?

I didn't say that these websites weren't biased; what I said is that RW is just as bad. It is extremely anti-theistic and it portrays all theists as retards.
Not just that, it's also extremely feminist. Like, tumbler "you're a women hating misogynistic tool of the patriarchy" feminist. Akin to Anita and Big Red.

The sites filled to the brim with biasism and bigotry, not just to theist, but just about anything that goes against the ones who run it's view of the world. It's just a horrible site to cite. But there are a few decent pages, imo, where the content of it is OK. I guess the fallacies are decent, so long as you ignore and don't take the theistic bash seriously and just take in what the fallacy is.

Funny how they lecture on fallacy yet commit it all the time.