The back alley

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>


A place to sit in a dumpster with your own bottle & moan about the saloon bar

Musha rig um du rum da
Whack fol the daddy o
Whack fol the daddy o
There's whiskey in the jar


[edit] Shortcut (sticky)

Shortcut to Bartop template

[edit] gurgle

MaillardFillmore (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice anything different?

yah, me neither. MaillardFillmore (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

I have to ask, what are you all doing here? You've started a site called "RationalWiki", and dressed it up to look like a reliable source for information, but none of you seem to be the least bit interested in verifying that the information actually is reliable, or in justifying why anyone else should believe a word of it. Some of you are not only not interested, but, when asked, openly contemptuous and hostile.

So, what are you doing? If it's not to build a reliable information source, then why are you here? Is it to advocate your own political position? I don't understand how you can pretend that this site has anything to do with rationalism, when one of you can write, unchallenged, "[P]olitical leftism is correct, while rightism is incorrect. Simple as that." (Obliquely disagreeing is not the same as challenging -- clearly, this expressed view is acceptable here.) Others capriciously assert that there is no such thing as truth -- the mother of all logical fallacies.

Every page I've visited so far belies the notion that this site is devoted to rationalism. That's a shame, because people could really use a site that was, to help them sort out fact from fantasy. I don't know how such a site would work, but this site is not even close.

Don't you see that the hubris you exhibit by assuming you are right, and assuming you are rational, without doing due diligence on your own thought process, is the same trait exhibited by every anti-science villain in history? It's not enough to feel in your gut that you're right -- everybody has that feeling. It's not enough to have Internet buddies to back you up -- there's that pesky matter of selection bias.

I accuse this site of being a purveyor of lies and nonsense.

It has:

  • No process for quality control,
  • No standards for evaluating evidence,
  • No guidance for editors on how to be "rational",
  • No safeguards in place against what is probably the most pernicious source of false information: groupthink. On the contrary, groupthink is enshrined as a community standard!

(On a side note, it's pretty obvious that something is wrong when you have parody pages mixed indiscriminately with ostensibly serious ones.)

This site's guilt is compounded by the fact that it ostentatiously bills itself "rationale". It adopts the veneer of integrity, without bothering to implement anything that integrity entails. Klortho (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

inb4 some clown links this template.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 09:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 09:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Klortho, if you don't like it, which you obviously don't, the door's right over there. Spud (talk)
Now that is even worse than this dumb template, it's as if it was piratecopied from the Right (policy $A, $B and $C is 'Murica, if you don't like it, leave and go to country $D where you came from, you <insert ethnophaulism here>).--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 15:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
We do have citations and talk pages. Wikipedia doesn't do much more to ensure accuracy, either. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Drink! Also, specific examples? Zero (talk - contributions) 17:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Honestly? Those are all things that could be changed, but promote more bureaucracy and don't really generate quality content on their own.
As to how to be rational: you aren't rational. Neither am I. Individual ideas can be rational, and can be quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated in ways particular to their domain of knowledge. You wouldn't ask for a mathematical proof in a chemistry lab, you wouldn't ask for scientific experiments in a court of law, and you wouldn't want to convince a jury of your peers that an essay has certain themes. Ideas have rationality tests and understanding what those tests are is not some easy on-off switch you can put into a machine and *ping* get the right answer. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality control, jokes, etc. are all essentially fixed by requiring citations -- same as on WP. Anything more than that is very difficult to enforce and begins to tread the line of "what is rationality". The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to report us to the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services? --Ymir (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services"? Is that some kind of RationalWiki in-joke?--Harkinian | Oah! (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
yes it is I am not the Ombud's man 17:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This magial rational,quality controlled wiki exists and it is called Wikipedia. In my opinion, the problem with the name RationalWiki isn't the word Rational it's the word Wiki which people tends to assume that it would imply this to be a place of facts and boredom. RW is much more a community for sane people (and nobs ^-^) than it is an encyclopedia.
If you come here for an unbiased opinion you definitely in the wrong place. If come here to read smart, fun and insightful articles on various topics and then you have come to the right place. TheGrandmother (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I am pleased that more people are seeing the issue with Rationalwiki. To say that those who are protesting this platform do so because of ideological differences is absurd, my own viewpoints are rather similar to most of the perspectives here, from politics to science. Rationalwiki's main problem is that it becomes a staging ground for individuals to harass others and voice their own distorted opinions on people or topics with the comfort of being anonymous. As a progressive, I am alarmed to see that we have our own version of the 'alt right' in this behavior, and Rationalwiki is simply 'fake news' dressed up as an encyclopedia. One individual who edits quit frequently here has conducted illegal activity such as extreme slander and leverages the page ranking of this platform on Google as one of his main staging grounds. It is highly likely that David Gerard, Fuzzy Cat Potato and the powers that be here simply have psychological disorders and see nothing wrong or harmful about their abuses. See what happens when people get a little bit of power on the internet? 03:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Simples answer - create your own wiki, with more rational rules (or, as the cartoon says, if you know a better hole go to it). (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you, at least, give us examples and/or citations about wrong information? You know... A wiki is something colletive, if you find something wrong and use your brain (I hope you have one) to prove your point, we will be glad to edit and update the page. 109 (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Science can be wrong too, you know. nobs 10:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalwiki's harassment problem

It is highly recommended this platform reflect on allowing a known online stalker whose name I wont mention and his massive sock army here and removing the articles he has posted against individuals he holds grudges against online. As the evidence is building against this individual and the legal ramifications, RW will be held accountable just as much as this individual since they harbor his activities. This individual's initials are O.S. Stopharassmentonline (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't posting vague threats and insinuations like the above just another form of harassment online? Stop yourself! Annquin (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, if we want to use bizarre logic, it is harassment in the same sense that an abusive husband considers himself the victim after he beats his wife. This message, and all messages to follow, are a response to harassment and an attempt to achieve some sort of recourse despite being blocked or banned when attempting to do so. Consider, if this platform actually allowed some sort of responsible pathway to resolve these issues, legal recourses would not be necessary, hence this message.Responsive12 (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
(As an editor)Look, we've seen people attempting to do this in the past, and take a very dim view of our site being used to make defamatory claims, particularly about unrelated internet drama. If you point to examples of these articles, and your point is valid, there's no need to be vague and use several different accounts. We're a modestly small community and things slip through the cracks, but please no more legal threats, the salloon bar is not the venue to make them. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 00:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
And just so you know, making legal threats is a reason to get yourself another ban.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
There have been many attempts to try and resolve this reasonably over the years, every single one of them met with hostility or twisted logic to justify why they are doing what they are doing. Why don't you inform me of how you would prefer this is addressed? I would prefer a peaceful and non confrontational resolution, however if I am met with hostility, naturally I would choose what ever other options are available to me, and simply stating that is NOT making a threat so please do not treat it as such simply so you can find a new way to ban me or censor this discussion.
Shouldn't we try and do better as progressives? Do you really want practice this type of abuse that is similar to the 'shitposting' tactics of the_donald, 8 chan and the alt right? Don't you see that what you are doing here is actually HARMFUL to your own ideals as progressives and discredits the ideas you claim to promote? Do you really want to use those same sort of tactics? I'm a politically progressive and pro science individual, yet on this website I am treated as an anti science crank. What makes this difficult for me the most is that since I actually SHARE most of the viewpoints here on this site AND I am someone WHO IS politically active in many of the same areas this platform claims to speak for, you're putting me in an awkward position.
So why don't we start fresh? A simple rational conversation will take minutes, but creating multiple accounts and getting banned over and over again will continue to be years in the making.
Please advise as to next steps. Responsive12 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Which concrete claim in which concrete article do you have a problem with? Worzelpete (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I am skeptical about addressing your question here simply because past experience tells me it will simply be met with more hostility. How about this, why don't you provide me with a throw away email account, and I will email you from another throw away email account. In that email, we can both agree to keep the contents private, and carry on our conversation that way? Honestly, this is not really a safe space to have this discussion if you want me to mention names and details and I would rather not have a dozen responses to my statements that simply dismiss me with name calling and accusations. Responsive12 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
we can start here. You or anyone here can create a throwaway email address as well here all of these communications will be deleted in 48 hours. How does that work for everyone? Responsive12 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
If my suggestion for throwaway email does not work, please suggest another alternative. Responsive12 (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Since you want to discuss legal threats, you should contact:
You should also stop posting vague insinuations here & await a response from the Foundation. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you yourself should email and inquire as to what actually constitutes a legal threat, because clearly you're confused. Since I clarified in writing in this post that I was seeking to have a reasonable dialogue which should NOT be construed as a legal threat, you appear to be informing me that my only recourse is a legal one. Odd. Was that your intention? Are you saying that the only way for me to resolve this is a legal channel and you are unwilling to resolve this with me any other way? Please be clear as to your answer, and be certain that you are speaking for the platform and community, not just yourself. In case you are still confused, my intention is to resolve this by my own petition directly to the editors here and in a way where I will not be harassed for doing so. I don't think that is vague at all. What are you afraid of? Responsive12 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
You've said you want to discuss whatever this issue is by email & I have provided you with the relevant contact details. If addressing it to an email address designated for legal issues pains you, try instead. It's likely to be the same RMF board members/officers who respond either way. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Blocked for legal threats. If they have a problem, the board is emailable - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
TL,DR: "I want to discuss a serious problem you have." "Ok, we'll look into it, what's the problem?" "Stop being a jerk! I just want you to fix your problem!" "What. Problem." "I'm not telling you here or you'll all yell at me. Meet me in a dark alley, where I can be sure nobody's watching." "Um...Here's my number, out you go." TeflonTrout (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
At risk of being dragged into something I literally don't care about, don't quote things nobody said. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"Stopharassmentonline" is a sock of Rome Viharo (he suddenly now claims to be "pro-science" and wants Rationalwiki to remove his history of supporting pseudo-science and crankery. I'm the person he's talking about, but what he writes about me is false. Yesterday he threatened to contact my parents or report me to the police; he showed up on my blog leaving his same delusions and false accusations and he's been doing the same to Tim Farley. He's completely nuts. I've never harassed anyone on Rationalwiki, nor have I harassed him. He's still talking about his Wikipedia ban that happened 4 years ago. He joins multiple forums/wikis to post about me and Tim Farley; I recently got a defamatory Wikipediocracy thread of his closed and the admins on that site also saw his as a troll; no one believed a word of his baloney story he's been harassed, but he still goes spamming it on wikis and forums. (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Long time lurker, first time talk-pager

I have used RW to get through my workday on a 6 days a week basis. I refurb networking equipment. I don't much care for computers, spend my off time playing in bands and digging dirt, real Midwestern purist. But when I'm dying from watching packets transfer successfully, I read this wiki. I watch the user pages. I can spot a RationalZombie94 headline from a glance. And I like the kid, I don't know why. I groan before ikanreed posts a short, frustrated response, I groan after. I like nobs. I don't know why. I like RCP, I know exactly why. I like FCP. I read Zexcoiler start to finish, same with diale...coli? Damn, should have written this down first. Pb, Plutoniumboss,Owlman, the Grandmother, Smerdis, Sword of the Northern... Anime YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'VE DONE, SIR. Anyway, I appreciate all you editors and the mission and even the execution. Wow, what? You guys are doing great and salving my existential wounds and if I didn't list you in the names that came to mind, I'm sorry, WEASELOID! Shit, uhhh, Levi RIP, Petey, and uhh Karl Marx? Keep doing what you're doing, a toast from here to all, long live RatWik, motion to move to Saloon Bar, and I THOUGHT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RATIONALWIKI!!! Edit ooooops (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Traditionally, the next step after long-time lurking and IP-editing is registering an account, so... welcome to the menagerie. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. I suppose you're usually right. Sorry for not shouting out in op, I said ZooGuard out loud today, though, so... oh my God, do I have Tourette's? How do I Poe? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This was a wholesome post. Thank you for writing it! Th hug.gif Also, where you wrote "I like RCP", I'm going to bet you meant to say "RBP", because I'm humble like that. Or because I'm an outstanding detective. Prolly not both though. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome here ! Diacelium (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, I meant to write ICP, but Reverend Black Percy is OK too, I guess. Last night was all wine and brandy. I regret not signing! (It's kinda like a pun if you read it out loud, leave me alone, I have so much shit to do today, ow my head) (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Nah nah nah dawg! You're teaching me wiki tricks. But let's be honest.Edit added another colon, this is confusing. (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
What a kind post! Much more nice than most BoN comments on RW. Why dont you gett an account and start editing yourself :) Its fun! And if you have more important things to do that you don't really want to do, it's way more fun! TheGrandmother (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
mercy me, I just got back from driving an hour in the wrong direction to deliver a laptop computer to a friend that would have hafta driven two and a half hours otherwise. On top of him driving the hour and a half to meet me. I have access these days, and I still love you guys, but don't expect a lot out of me.
If none of that made sense, you ain't exactly plains people. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I was so dumb to not notice the talkpage as also getting updates. Here I was looking at the actual Bar looking for who posted what and finding nothing. Though, thanks BoN! I'm happy to have been mentioned (:D). I feel strangely honored. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! Look! Up there!' 07:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Strangely honored is a pretty good phrase. Thanks, sincerely. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools