Essay talk:Why RationalWiki is not so great

Essay
Is there any reason this shouldn't go to essayspace? - David Gerard (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Essays are typically the work of a single person, and not open to contributions from community as a whole. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of essays are "open" to anyone - have a browse. Pippa (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I vote essayspace. Also, CS, feel free to edit the page you linked. 02:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * + another 1 for essayspace.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. 17:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Feels rather forced
Whilst there are certainly some good points made here, a number of them are surely common to almost any wiki and for that reason, the whole piece feels somewhat forced to me. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I even lifted a few points off the Wikipedia article. Not sure why this matters, though? It's still a drawback of RW. For example, talk pages are a real pain to work with IMHO, and the fact that anyone can edit RW has sometimes led to subtle nonsense being inserted in pages. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the way the wiki works, the door's that way. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought you had taken that door. But you seem to be back again ;) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is possibly the most silly reply anyone could give to this. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

RW: Good, Bad, Ugly
Good Bad Ugly ~  18:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * sections that are 'complementary' to wikipedia, and address points it cannot address, in particular debunking.
 * articles on topics that are unsuitable (too special interest) for wikipedia, etc but are relevant for secularists, skeptics, and “rationalists”...
 * articles that look at the secular, rationality, skeptics... scence and its opponents, in particlar disregarding encylopedic notability.
 * fun read, SPOV if done well.
 * assessment from a rational, secular, progressive etc... POV
 * accessibility, navigation or structure could be improved, e.g. portals, useful access links more prominent, de-cluttering.
 * articles which don't add anything and have a Wikipedia etc counterpart, where its probably better maintained.
 * too random collections of articles: e.g. world views are a jumble, some science concepts exist, but are incomplete etc lack of concept
 * plenty of subtle to strong nonsense in articles, which can be extra damaging since the appearance of RW is “rational” and against pseudo-science — pseudo-science thus extra damaging.
 * SPOV, non-neutral-POV and RationalWiki “misnaming” used as excuse for everything, and against all criticism. No criticism is taken seriously, “reasons” cited to rationalize everything.
 * Bias goes far beyond what is stated on the can. Lack of transparency. Real bias is a specific, ideologically narrow corner.
 * Strong Black-and-White splitting in many articles, severe lack of nuance. People are often either saints or demons. Incentive structure is as such that due to major hassles only dedicated fans or haters tend to exert strongest influence.
 * Strong reporting bias, or lying by omission. RW has a strong tendency to hide information and then offers free-wheeling stories on whatever remains. The presented picture is heavily skewed. No standard-“reasoning” or rationalization allows for this even when the RW doesn't want to be neutral. Standard telltale are concerns for “mission” or "notability" and BS “just so” reasons that selectively come up. Often times flak (revert/hassle) are enough to keep half of it hidden, see previous point. Reporting bias doesn't even help people who are the target audience: they usually have a false sense of superiority and once in the real world get themselves a bloody nose in their first encounter, with the characteristic SJW reaction of gaslighting, smearing and authoritarian control.
 * Lying by association, a common tactic, e.g. Richard Dawkins is like conservatives, and then like Peter Hitchens (who is then portrayed as far-wing conservative), i.e. Dawkins ludicrously becomes a far-right-winger. Same tactic is used against users, too.
 * Preachy: instead of portraying what is, it's lied about things (as explained above), and then told what users should think: another common tactic, prerogative of interpretation trickery, i.e. person X is such and such (racist, conservative, etc) often spurious.

On generalizations
Ascribing the behavior of a few individuals to the whole of RW may or may not be in the same ballpark as ascribing the behavior of a few individuals to whole subreddits or "movements". Jus' sayin'.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right; that was unfortunate wording. Sorry. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)