Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki

In fact, i consider myself exsptionally more of a rational man than those of the likes of Rationalwikie and the Libral/Luvvie-Left Bum tart's. [sic]

"I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" cry the critics.

Indeed. How can a site that calls itself "rational" not see the obvious superiority of whites, persecution of males, efficacy of homeopathy, truth of the Bible, proven workings of trickle-down economics, and/or [belief XYZ]?

The obvious answer is that RationalWiki is truth incarnate made by humans, and humans aren't always right. Our articles may be flawed or incomplete or dead wrong.

The obvious followup is that this is also true of our readers (that's you!). You're human, and humans aren't always right. Your views may be flawed or incomplete or dead wrong.

In short: We don't call ourselves "RationalWiki" because we think that our every word is Gospel truth. (Or the atheist equivalent.) We call ourselves RationalWiki because we think we're mostly right. If you think you can disprove us or our articles, have at it. Whining that and/or unironically referring to our site with a space in between the words "Rational" and "Wiki" is the laziest, tritest criticism possible. Whining about its left-wing bias is almost equally lazy. Unsurprisingly, seemingly no one has been clever enough to think of “TrationalWiki”. '''We already know that we aren't perfect. Tell us why. Be constructive.'''

Why?
RATINALWIKI is PRO WARMIST LIE created by LIBERAL wanting to DEFAME people who tell the TRUTH they want to take over world and DO COMMUNIST

Perfection incarnate
RationalWiki: Anyone Who Says Otherwise Is Irrational&trade;

"Rational" as a word doesn't just mean an appeal to logic and reason (though anyone putting too much trust in a dictionary would undoubtedly spit this definition back). "Rational" also suggests that a "rational" person, far from just "appealing to logic and reason", is very much intellectually superior and absolutely 100% correct and justified.

Of course, this is ridiculous. Nobody has ever got everything correct, ever. Sources that screw up but still try to provide the truth are better than no sources at all. Just because science has been wrong before doesn't mean that science isn't worth a damn. (If you disagree, please consider that device you're reading this on exists only because of scientific findings.)

Obviously, RationalWiki is different. We're the cream of the crop. OK? We're 100% correct and never make mistakes. That's why we have this. And this. And this. And this and this and this. And, of the most relevance, this.

I am right, you are wrong


The trouble is, no one ever believes they are thinking irrationally. This is quite easily demonstrated, because whether we like it or not, in the mind of pretty much every single person in the world is a little script that reads like so:

I am right, everything I think is right. This much is obvious because I wouldn't think something if it was wrong, would I? If I could point to an opinion of mine and say "that's wrong, and very irrational", I would simply stop thinking it and discard it. As this is empirically true, we can safely define "right" as "whatever I think" — making whatever I think right. Therefore, if you don't think like me, you are very much wrong by definition. QED bitches.

This leads to an impasse where two (or more) parties can each believe, quite firmly, that they are being rational and the other is being irrational. Nine times out of ten, when someone is verbally accusing you of being irrational, they're actually just accusing you of disagreeing with them.

Calm and rational
There is also a small but significant confusion between appearing rational and appearing as a calm, Zen-like figure of reason, so those with a sharp tongue or a good eye for snark may well be accused of being "irrational" too regardless of their actual content. But again, this isn't the case and accusing someone of being "irrational" for using laconic or foul language is fallacious, i.e. the tone argument.

Whoops
In hindsight, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words, but "SkepticWiki" was already taken, "Skeptical Empiricist Wiki" isn't catchy, and "Liberapedia", apart from already being taken, is just embarrassing (by both name and the nature of the existing site with that name). What else could it have been?

Examples
Real rational people don't need to label themselves as rational. So a so called rational wiki is necessarily full of bullshit. The RationalWiki™ (RW™) used to be a (sort of) funny troll parody of the Republicans who got banned from Wikipedia and created Conservapedia because they hate President Trump and now calls it "the IrationallWiki". This is a very common criticism. (No, really.) Here are some quotes:

It's too liberal

 * Note: the comment is considered a "top" pick and has 1000+ upvotes and just over 100 downvotes.
 * Note: the comment is considered a "top" pick and has 1000+ upvotes and just over 100 downvotes.
 * Note: the comment is considered a "top" pick and has 1000+ upvotes and just over 100 downvotes.
 * Note: the comment is considered a "top" pick and has 1000+ upvotes and just over 100 downvotes.
 * Note: the comment is considered a "top" pick and has 1000+ upvotes and just over 100 downvotes.

It's not feminist enough

 * (Wha? Have they seen our harshing of MRAs?)
 * (Wha? Have they seen our harshing of MRAs?)

What constitutes a suitable, sensible, and above all rational response?
Drink! Then, if it's on a talkpage, you may respond with the following templates, if you so choose: RATIONALwiki, and/or irrationalwikicollapse to hide the comment if the screed is very long or annoying.

See also: Essay:Common criticisms of RationalWiki, RationalWiki:Pissed at us