Forum:2016 Mission Survey

The mission survey results are out!

See here for Google's summaries, or here for a gigantic .PNG that shows every single response.

There were 249 non-troll, non-spam, non-dox responses.

First mission question
Question text: If you could change the first mission statement, what would you change it to? ("Remove entirely" and "Would not change" are fine!)

There were 102 responses, which fit into 10 categories:


 * 1) "Analyzing and refuting misused or bad science and the anti-science movement" -- pseudoscience isn't as well defined a term as one might like.
 * 2) "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and anti-science movements."
 * 3) "Summarizing and refuting..."
 * 4) Analyzing and refuting pseudoscientific and antiscientific claims.
 * 5) Analyzing and refuting the general pseudoscience and anti-science movement.
 * 6) Questioning and analysing the claims of pseudoscience
 * 7) Refuting pseudoscience and antiscience.
 * 8) Rephrase as "Analyzing pseudoscience and anti-science"
 * 9) Fuck Pseudoscience
 * 10) drop "and refuting"
 * 11) Maybe make it "movements"


 * 1) Analysing and refuting pseudoscience,, the anti-science movement, the paranormal, UFOs, and the conspiracy world
 * 2) ....(add) while increasing the notoriety and understanding of actual science.
 * 3) i would add something about combating general nonsense/bullshit/batshit
 * 4) Perhaps say something about examining political ideologies too?
 * 5) Probably would not change. Might wish to add: Expose anti-science tendencies
 * 6) Promoting understanding and discussion of science, particularly in light of the pseudoscientific and anti-science movements.


 * 1) Analyzing scientific hypotheses and theories.
 * 2) Burning down myths and freeing us from dogma. But really, what you have works.
 * 3) Debunking cranks from both the left and right
 * 4) Refuting pseudoscience and supporting the facts.
 * 5) Truth Seeking.
 * 6) To discuss why religious belief and superstitious belief is a danger to a healthy, forward moving and progressive society. To also discuss and promote the criticism of religious belief and that no one should respect religious belief. That is, to get the idea across that the only reason why the religious DEMAND respect and DEMAND immunity from criticism, it because it's the only way they can get it.


 * 1) Having 'refuting' as part of the mission statement presupposes a conclusion. What if you investigated something that seemed to be pseudoscience and it turned out the be legitimate?
 * 2) My real issue is that beyond anti-vaxx, anti-science movements aren't as prominent anymore. It does describe who the site pokes fun at pretty well however
 * 3) There is more examples of anti-science needed. All the site has is a small page with a description of what anti-science is, without any good explanation as to all
 * 4) Not sure anti-science qualifies as a "movement" though. Maybe "mentality"?
 * 5) What anti-science movement? Is there one? Does this make sense?


 * 1) Empasize it more
 * 2) I'm not sure how I'd change it but I don't believe it is "perfect"
 * 3) It is slightly vague but don't have any major objections to it
 * 4) It should only be systematically improved.
 * 5) Make it more defined


 * 1) Fuck off FCP. You're a meddling child.
 * 2) Fuck you Fuzzy Cat Potato. You're an officious, self entitled twat for continuing to force yourself on the community you're ruining.


 * 1) "Document and refute pseudo..." alas isn't really true for the RW.
 * 2) Analyzing and refuting Gamergate and discussions of social justice in ways that are the exact inverse of those we oppose.


 * 1) I'd merge 1 and 2 into "Documenting and refuting pseudoscience, the anti-science movement, and other crank ideas."


 * 1) I'd break it into two statements. "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience" could be one and "exposing and discrediting the anti-science movement" could be the other.

And 64 variations of "would not change". Average rating was 4.573839662; median was 5.



Second mission question
Question text: If you could change the second mission statement, what would you change it to? ("Remove entirely" and "Would not change" are fine!)

There were 104 valid responses, which fit into 10 categories.


 * 1) "Crank ideas" is too vague and too often abused to include all sort of border-line nonsense (e.g. My Little Pony, excessive LessWrong bashing, and lets not even mention GamerGate)
 * 2) "Crank" is a term that some may find off-putting
 * 3) "Crank" is Jargon, though what else you would use I'm unsure.
 * 4) "Crank" might not be a very well-understood word but good otherwise.
 * 5) Calling it "crank" gives a negative connotation. This may get the audience you are seeking, but lowers your respect to anyone who might believe in it and just wants to get the truth. It leads towards an echo chamber, not enlightenment.
 * 6) Change "Crank" to a better word
 * 7) Change Crank to something else.
 * 8) change the word 'crank'
 * 9) crank' seems like a colloqualism
 * 10) Don't know, but 'crank ideas' often seems to mean just 'ideas outside the mainstream of liberal US thought'.
 * 11) Guidance material should be provided on what 'crank' is
 * 12) I feel the word Crank is too informal here, but maybe that's just me
 * 13) It really starts becoming unnecessary. I am Dutch speaking and can read on this site: http://nl.hoax.wikia.com/wiki/Hoax_wiki about all the insane cranks that at least can exist on a local level.
 * 14) Remove the word crank
 * 15) Some things that are "crank" are 90% crank, so mention that. Otherwise fine.
 * 16) Use technical language instead of slang
 * 17) "the full range" is a bit excessive.
 * 18) The "full range" is incredibly broad. Should it be narrowed?
 * 19) Who decides what is a "crank idea"? And do you really want to document the "full range", i.e. all "crank" ideas no matter how obscure? There's a lot of cranks on this planet, should RW have articles on them all? But if not, you aren't really documenting the "full range of crank ideas"


 * 1) "Documenting the full range and history of crank ideas."
 * 2) Critiquing the various crank ideas.
 * 3) Documenting all significant crank ideas
 * 4) Documenting and critiquing the full range of crank misinformation.
 * 5) Documenting and debunking crank ideas.
 * 6) Documenting and refuting/ridiculing...
 * 7) Documenting the full range of crank ideas, as well as its purveyors.
 * 8) Documenting the full range of notable crank ideas.
 * 9) Documenting widespread crank ideas.
 * 10) Exploring the full range of crank ideas
 * 11) full range of unconventional ideas


 * 1) ....(add) as well as the truth they obscure.
 * 2) Bringing to light the flaws and fallacies behind conspiratorial and crank profiligates.
 * 3) Document the the full and complete range of ludicrous claims, crank ideas, and unreasonable fallacies.
 * 4) Documenting conspiracist and crank ideas.
 * 5) Documenting crank ideas and their social impact
 * 6) I would add "and their promoters".
 * 7) I would expand on 'crank' more, maybe add 'completely bat shit crazy' or something of the sort.
 * 8) Keep "Documenting the full range of crank ideas" Then add "and how they have affected our critical thinking on a societal level".


 * 1) Documenting debunked and harmful ideas.
 * 2) Documenting shit unsupported by established facts
 * 3) Documenting the extent and prevalence of misconceptions.
 * 4) Documenting the range of ways in which evidence has been ignored
 * 5) Unearthing Earth's errant imbeciles and quashing their absolute nonsense.


 * 1) A bit redundant of statement 1.
 * 2) Include something about refuting or remove entirely as a repeat of part 1
 * 3) See 1/7


 * 1) Remove Entirely
 * 2) Remove entirely, is redundant of No.1 and has led to RationalWiki becoming increasingly a political platform rather than a sceptical one.
 * 3) Remove. Obviously, a wiki documents things and "crank ideas" contains assumptions.


 * 1) Add reasoning as to why the idea is bad
 * 2) Empasize this, too
 * 3) Should be tied more closely to their analysis and criticism


 * 1) ...except for cases where giving them exposure is what they want
 * 2) I think it's important, but not as much as logic, rhetoric and actual science articles. Why? Because the more you know about the ways to bullshit you, and the more you know about real science, the better you are able to tell cranks from real deals on your own. And I think this is what is the most important thing RW can do for average people: giving a fishing rod instead of fish.


 * 1) Maybe move it below "Explorations of authoritarianism..."


 * 1) Documenting the full range of social justice causes and every little internet battle involving them, with only our feelz as evidence.

And 49 variations on "it's fine". Average rating was 4.25210084; median was 5.



Third mission question
Question text: If you could change the third mission statement, what would you change it to? ("Remove entirely" and "Would not change" are fine!)

There were 94 valid responses, which fit into 10 categories:


 * 1) "a better understanding of authorit.."
 * 2) "Exploring and opposing authoritarianism and fundamentalism"
 * 3) "Exploring authoritarianism and fundamentalism."
 * 4) "Exploring..." To make construction parallel to first two
 * 5) add "movements such as " after "of"
 * 6) Exploration and exposure of authoritarianism and fundamentalism
 * 7) Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism in all its forms.
 * 8) Exploring
 * 9) Exploring authoritarian and fundamentalist ideologies.
 * 10) Analyzing political extremism and religious fundamentalism.
 * 11) Exploring authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
 * 12) Something like 'arguing against fundmentalist beliefs'
 * 13) Tracking and documenting current and historical occurrences of authoritarianism and fundamentalism
 * 14) Analyzing the manifestations of authoritarianism and dogmatism


 * 1) What the hell does it mean to "explore" fundamentalism? I'm exploring fundamentalism by converting to Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm exploring authoritarianism by joining the Nazi party. Wouldn't "criticise" be a better word than "explore"?
 * 2) Sounds like you're open to authoritarianism and fundamentalism
 * 3) authoriatianism is a shit word ;-)
 * 4) Authoritarianism is, as I hope you already know, a specific term in psychology. I'm not sure that's what you're actually referring to in your mission statement.
 * 5) Could clarify what exactly "explorations" mean in this context.
 * 6) Explorations doesn't really convey much of a purpose other than it's going to be discussed. Is this really necessary to mention, or is it just something commonly related to misleading information? It only serves to target certain beliefs, not actually targeting bad information.
 * 7) I am not 100% sure the authoritarianism there makes sense.
 * 8) Needs a better focus.
 * 9) Too vague imho
 * 10) Too vague: maybe something about political dogma.
 * 11) We don't only document/explore authoritarianism, it seems
 * 12) I believe that this is too specific, as other absurd political views are ridiculed (justifiably) on this site.
 * 13) include other "isms" along these lines, or which are based similarly on pseudoscience, fear, bullshit, etc.


 * 1) "Explorations of the relationships between authoritarianism, fundamentalism, and irrationality."
 * 2) Add something about related movements, or something more general about religion and politics
 * 3) A broader political mission would be better. Something along the lines of: "Explorations of the political situation in the world, especially covering instances of authoritarianism and fundamentalism."
 * 4) How about: "Explorations of authoritarianism, fundamentalism, and other extremism."
 * 5) Examine authoritarian and fundamentalist distortions of thinking and facts.
 * 6) Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism and how to fight against them


 * 1) Politics and history are a cunning beast. We should document this and present our views on it. But... we should also tell people it's only our opinion (not that we don't do that). Like in crank exploration, we should mostly focus on teaching logic, science and scientific method (and how arguments add up and whether they aren't fallacious) in order to give the people a fishing rod rather than mere fish. People should learn how to think on their own instead of blindly relying on RW to make up their own mind about some politicians.
 * 2) Cover more instances of left-wing authoritarianism
 * 3) A few articles and sections seem biased, but is otherwise upheld.
 * 4) It has a rational but very Americentric approach on the matter. I can get all I need to know about the American Nazi Party, but there is no page of Golden Dawn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_%28political_party%29, a Greek political party that might be one of the most fundamentally right-wing political parties ever made.
 * 5) Strike. No longer true.
 * 6) Too often, conservatism is conflated with authoritarianism and fundamentalism, and even the loopiest ideas out of feminism and the identity politics left are treated as revealed truth.


 * 1) Explorations of fanatics and the deluded
 * 2) Watching the scolding watchers. Giving them a taste of their own no holds barred medicine. Crushing the non-thinkers.


 * 1) Gamergate. Ugh.
 * 2) Gets us into massive flame wars that would have cooled down in the era before MySpace and Friendster


 * 1) Boring


 * 1) Merge with #2


 * 1) Neutral to this aspect, this is down to the choice of others.


 * 1) Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, so long as it suits our personal agenda.

And 60 variations on "would not change". Average rating was 4.033613445; median was 4.



Fourth mission question
If you could change the fourth mission statement, what would you change it to? ("Remove entirely" and "Would not change" are fine!)

There were 88 valid responses, which fit into 10 categories.


 * 1) ...but the site contains very little of this
 * 2) I don't really see too much of an analysis of how the general media handles theses topics at all in most articles. Unless there's a joke about good ol' "bullshit mountain".
 * 3) Nothing wrong with the mission statement; the problem is in the application.
 * 4) Reasonable, but I'm not sure if this is particularly true of existing contents.
 * 5) Seems a bit tacked on . We don't really do this to an appreciable extent.
 * 6) Irrelevant
 * 7) Media coverage is entertaining but it doesn't seem to follow the other 3.


 * 1) "...handled in society."
 * 2) "Analyzing and criticizing ..."
 * 3) "Critical analysis" is clearer, and doesn't contain the implied pejorative, of 'criticism' (I know, but people do think 'criticism' means 'slagging off').
 * 4) Analyzing and criticizing
 * 5) Critical analysis of how. . ..
 * 6) Evaluating how these subjects are portrayed in the media.
 * 7) Inspecting how these subjects are handled in popular media.


 * 1) I think it should include "in the media and in the general public
 * 2) Not just media, other things, too
 * 3) way more to it than that


 * 1) Answering media propaganda with transparency
 * 2) "Analysis and Criticism of How These Things Impact Society."
 * 3) Analysis of how pop culture views science.


 * 1) Remove entirely
 * 2) Remove, too. Not true. RW is uncritical towards SJW reporting (Sarkeesian, GG etc).
 * 3) It's fucking retarded. Has no place in rationalism.


 * 1) if anything, this should be more prominent (cf. Bad Science)
 * 2) Should be much more prevalent than it is now


 * 1) I don't know. But a criticism: "The media," from my perspective, is often way to broad of a distinction to be useful. I appreciate specificity. I say that as a simple cops reporter. I don't see my work as occupying the same sphere as CNN or Breitbart. Or popular fiction novels and TV sitcoms. Small gripe, really; it's a good mission statement.


 * 1) Again, gets us into flame wars


 * 1) It's okay
 * Meh


 * 1) Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media, from our own wildly biased and no-longer evidence-based in its handling.

And 59 variations on "it's fine".

Average rating was 4.241525424; median was 5.



Purpose of RationalWiki
Question text: What do you believe is the purpose of RationalWiki, if any?

196 valid responses.

I wasn't sure how to sort these things. Generally, they fell into a few categories: [1] all-inclusive encyclopedia of woo, [2] quick introduction and takedown on any given woo, [3] education geared for the general public about woo, [4] being the place you go to when you aren't sure if a source is shit, and [5] using humor to attack woo. But there was so much bleedover between each category, categorizing each clearly would be impossible.
 * 1) A critical encyclopedia of pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudophilosophy.
 * 2) A goto database of dissected crank ideas and pseudoscience, to refute the likes of naturalnews and Alex Jones
 * 3) A ressource to refute pseudoscience and a platform to discuss scientific skepticism
 * 4) A starting point to investigating fundamentalism, anti science and cranks
 * 5) Among other things, to be linked to for proof that person X is a quack (or company X a scam), especially to people in danger of falling for their quackery.
 * 6) An informative and humorous platform for shining light on pseudo-science and anti-science
 * 7) as a go to guide for all the crazy ideas and people in the world. Equally important is a social hangout for people with common views (the second bit is sometimes frowned upon but it shouldn't be).
 * 8) As a starting point for debunking woo, conspiracy and bad science
 * 9) Be the place to get info if you have to deal with crazy people. Get info on alternatives to your current situation.
 * 10) Best case scenario - providing arguments and evidence to refute (or if it ever becomes necessary, back up) crank / alternative idea. Most of the time however, it's somewhere for anal retentives and keyboard warriors to bitch about each other on talk pages and the coop.
 * 11) Countering bad information on the internet with evidence based information in one place for easy access.
 * 12) Debunk and expose hoaxes, pseudoscience, alt medicine, ect. ect.
 * 13) debunk bullshit
 * 14) Debunk crazy ideas with logic
 * 15) Debunk irrational and unscientificclaims, beliefs, movements, and positions.
 * 16) Debunking crank ideas and pseudo-science, with just the right amount of humour.
 * 17) Debunking hard to spot nonsense with rational thinking and factual evidences
 * 18) Debunking ignorance
 * 19) Debunking shit
 * 20) Desperately trying to hold back the ever-rising tide of utter drivel by building a wall of reason and logic.
 * 21) Document and comment on bullshit in all its forms.
 * 22) Documentation, analysis and criticism of the beliefs and claims of the major, if not all, representatives of the anti-science and anti-intellectualism platform.
 * 23) Documenting and making fun of dangerous idiots
 * 24) Documenting anti-scientific beliefs adopting a conservative scientific approach (conservative in the sense that fringe or developing science should be approached with caution).
 * 25) Documenting irrationality and rational responses thereto, without worrying overly about being polite.
 * 26) Documenting pseudoscience, logical fallacies, conspiracy theories and religious anti-science sentiments.
 * 27) Educate and critique pseudoscience or anti-science, its advocates, and its causes, through the use of humor and ridicule.
 * 28) Educate people in a clear and sometimes humorous way about real science vs. bullshit
 * 29) enlightening others on historical and current irrational thought, and providing information on how to counter it and thus improve the world. also to provide comedic relief in the form of pointing out ridiculousness in others. it is oftentimes good for a pitiful laugh :)
 * 30) Entertaining but informed documenting and questioning of dangerous people and ideas
 * 31) Exactly what it said in the mission statement. For me personally it's always been a great resource to find rational, easily digestible summations and analyses on numerous subjects of great interest to me, and it's also often been the only such resource regarding with relatively obscure topics and people.
 * 32) Exposing deviant thought, combating pseudo-science, etc.
 * 33) Exposing woo
 * 34) Fight against pseudoscience, fallacies, and dogma.
 * 35) Fighting woo
 * 36) For the less formally trained (e.g. myself) It is a great discriminator of ideas that help us detect bullshit ideas and examine our own thought processes
 * 37) Fufilling your mission statement, which is to educate those with rationality by debunking crank ideals, providing fact towards evolution and criticizing and correcting the woeful ignorance of others.
 * 38) Help us look at the world critically.
 * 39) Helping me ID likely bullshit I see on the Internet as, in fact, real bullshit.
 * 40) I don't know what it's purpose IS, what it's purpose SHOULD BE is destroying pseudo-science and the likes and hitting fascists hard and fast, no matter whether they are domestic or foreign. Saying Assad or Arafat are fascists and going on to prove it should be part of what RW does.
 * 41) Making fun of denialism, fundamentalism, and general loud incompetence.
 * 42) Mocking those who believe that they have a monopoly or unique insight of the "truth" especially when that truth runs counter to established science, and common human decency
 * 43) Provide a counterpoint to, and ideally an inoculation against, quackery, crankery and woo.
 * 44) Providing information on insane people.
 * 45) Pushing for secular, rational, scientific principles. Supporting socially liberal political viewpoints.
 * 46) Quick way to find accurate information on promoters of sketchy ideas.
 * 47) RationalWiki is designed to refute illogical, and ridiculous ideas, such as virgin births, and point out things based on faulty premises, like the no true Scotsman.
 * 48) Reference on scientific and ideological bizarreness, with further reading always provided
 * 49) Refute false beliefs and help people learn about science. (Make fun of Conservapedia is a side purpose)
 * 50) Refute pseudoscience, provide information on relevant topics, defend rationalism
 * 51) Refuting crank ideas of all kinds.
 * 52) refuting fundies and pseudoscience
 * 53) Refuting particularly badly-thought thru or badly-evidenced theories and claims in a fairly irreverent style.
 * 54) Refuting pseudoscience in all its forms, and giving straight, evidence-based answers to serious questions.
 * 55) refuting the cranks, pseudoscientists, and all the other people like that.
 * 56) RW is a resource (at least for me) on the latest discussions on pseudoscience, crazy politics, religious nuts, cranks, etc. It sets itself apart by having excellent references and a great sense of humor without being too nasty.
 * 57) Showing the wonderfulness of science and it's method and rebutting the deep well of stupidity of pseudoscience, anti-science and conspiracy theories
 * 58) Starting with a religious fundamentalist claim, pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, or other downright nutty idea, smashing it into little bits, analyzing those little bits for why exactly they're wrong, season liberally with snarky commentary, and serve in an easy-to-read method where I can press the Random Page button on my phone while taking a dump and be whisked away to a new land of goofy science-based edutainment.
 * 59) Stopping dangerous pseudo-science, or at least convincing third parties of the incorrectness
 * 60) Studying and criticizing pseudoscience and known falsehoods, often of a political nature, in an educational and sometimes light hearted fashion.
 * 61) Telling people about cranks, authoritarians, scams, and such in a skeptical manner.
 * 62) The documentation and refutation of pseudoscientific and prescientific ideas, as well as perennial unworkable crank ideas from history.
 * 63) The purpose of Rationalwiki is to act as a "sanity checker," where rational
 * 64) The Refutation of irrational and illogical beliefs
 * 65) To bring forward argumentation based on science so as to point out spurious claims found within society.
 * 66) to combat nonsense of all forms in a facetious but intellectual way
 * 67) To debunk and crush belief in any kind of pseudo-science, anti-science and crank authoritarian ideas.
 * 68) To debunk false ideas and help stop the spread of lies
 * 69) To debunk myths and pseudoscience and NOT comment on politics.
 * 70) To display all sorts of crankery (conspiracy theories, pseudo-subjects, ufology and stuff like that) refute the, give extra information and also be humorous about it.
 * 71) To document obvious wrongness in science, social science, politics, and the humanities
 * 72) To examine elements of society, culture, and politics through a skeptical, empirical manner.
 * 73) To expose crank ideas as such, to be a place where refutations of such positions can be found.
 * 74) To expose faulty concepts and claims.
 * 75) To expose fraudulent, absurd, crazy, and absolutely horrid ideas/beliefs/human behavior to the masses - while having fun doing so of course.
 * 76) To fight against stupidity using facts and science.
 * 77) To give information based on science and rationalism about a wide range of topics, especially those that work against them.
 * 78) To help document and refute all forms of woo.
 * 79) To help people accept reality as demonstrated by facts and logic.
 * 80) To humorously explain pseudo-science in an insulting manner towards those who believe it.
 * 81) To increase the awareness and practice of critical thinking skills and the use of logic in arriving at conclusions of what it true and what is not. To educate the general public in an objective, (if snarky), appraisal of anything and everything that is pseudoscientific, superstitious, ignorant, and misleading.
 * 82) To inform parties seeking an objective view of science and non science
 * 83) to provide a forum for exploring and understanding that which is rejected by mainstream scientists.
 * 84) To provide a go-to resource on all sorts of tomfoolery and nutcases in action. I've found it incredibly useful for a brief evaluation, especially on a topic/person/situation I'm unfamiliar with.
 * 85) To provide a healthy, reasonable place to tell it like it really is about the world, with a healthy dose of entertainment to liven it up.
 * 86) To provide a rational, empirical critique of elements of society in an easily accessible form.
 * 87) To provide a reason-based, snarky view of the world and to expose and refute unscientific, pseudoscientific, or logically unsound arguments and ideas.
 * 88) To provide a skeptical view on religion, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience.
 * 89) To provide a skeptical, secular and progressive view on issues, using humour and solid logic in articles
 * 90) To provide a source of information to help one refute and debunk the vast amounts of misinformation and outright lies one may come across when researching certain topics of controversy (or false controversy).
 * 91) To provide a source of reliable, objective information about organisations, people, publishers, advertisers and web sites which promulgate non-scientific information to the detriment of the general public.
 * 92) To provide critical analysis of ideas and claims.
 * 93) to provide interesting commentary on the idiocy of humanity with some humor.
 * 94) To provide rational answers to the main creationist, religionist and other irrational worldviews
 * 95) To refute pseudoscience, quackery, and logically flawed beliefs and ideologies in an entertaining, accessible and informative manner, and to promote the use of the scientific method as a means of furthering our understanding.
 * 96) To refute pseudo-science, while defending real science.
 * 97) To refute the claims and statements made by any individual in truth and humor
 * 98) To refute the nonsense peddled by charlatans, scam artists, and idiots.
 * 99) To serve as a hub of information on a variety of relevant subjects, especially to those interested and invested on a rationalistic view of life
 * 100) To use logic, reasoning, and sometimes humor to expose the stupidity of moronic ideas with many (could use some more) sources.


 * 1) Casting a rational eye on aspects of the modern age, and fighting pseudoscience, using modern collaborative formats
 * 2) Being a repository of useful refutations in regards to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and general bad argumentation. It's also important in that it directly calls people/groups out for fundamentalist and bigoted ideas/rhetoric, in contrast to wikipedias dry descriptive articles.
 * 3) Providing arguments/counterarguments for often misunderstood (or even totally made up) topics, without having to deal with Wikipedia's NPOV "political correctness". The humorous writing style is also a big plus, and does not impact the trustworthiness of RW.
 * 4) Tell the reader the subjective personal - but rational - opinion about important topics, where wiki is afraid or fails to put things the way they are
 * 5) To serve as a near-Wikipedia-quality source for information on science and pseudoscience, albeit one that is transparent about its agenda and is a bit more polemical in its tone.
 * 6) Wikipedia without enforced neutrality, from a more rational point of view


 * 1) To provide a rational save haven for people tired of the crazy
 * 2) A place for skeptics, rationalists, and intellectuals to discuss and learn about various topics.
 * 3) A source of information for people with a secular and skeptical worldview and a snarky sense of humour.


 * 1) Basically, to be an anti-irrationality resource.
 * 2) Bring rational knowledge to the world to people of all walks
 * 3) As I see it, the purpose of Rational Wiki is to extend a liberating mindset for society, trying to accomplish this by debunking harmful beliefs and exposing misinformation through reason and humor. Though it’s true that promoting critical thinking is hard and perfectly rational behavior is not within our human nature, I think that people at least deserve to have a life free of self-deception.
 * 4) Inculcating a spirit of rational thinking amongst readers
 * 5) Promote rational discussion, and to highlight the lack of rational discussion in the world today while refuting it.
 * 6) Instilling a love for debate and a focus on the substance of an argument. Denouncing ad hominem attacks and reactionary behaviour.
 * 7) Sometimes it's fun to just chase the rabbit instead of catching it. But I believe RW can teach people how to think for themselves. Or at least inspire them to. It's good we also explore cranks, stupid politicians, lying and biased media and explain actual science to people in a bit more accessible way (although I still sometimes find it not accessible enough for an average Joe). I'm not sure how big and important is RW in the popular culture, among American people. But the more people are aware of it, the more the media, politicians and cranks have to be wary of us. And the more wary of us they are... the better for the people. They will have a harder time BSing people if they think "oh, but RW will laugh their asses at me".
 * 8) To spread the truth and raise human conscious awareness.
 * 9) The promotion of a rational worldview...
 * 10) to be a resource for rational reasoning and various countering tactics against irrational thought
 * 11) To create laymen friendly articles on argumentation and logic
 * 12) To espouse critical thinking and expose the irrational (in an amusing manner)
 * 13) To inform and educate, to stop the spread of misinformation, to encourage critical thinking
 * 14) To promote and provoke clear thinking, science, and a snarky sense of humor
 * 15) To promote rational thinking
 * 16) To promote the desirability of rational thinking in all circumstances.
 * 17) To provide a cynical, yet entertaining, viewpoint on information and ideas which encourage the reader to think rationally on subjects.
 * 18) What is implied in its name. Bring rational thinking to those seeking it. It has helped many get rid of religion, for instance.


 * 1) To promote science and rationalism
 * 2) To promote rational and logical thought by demonstrating how the scientific method is used.
 * 3) To promote scientific thinking and investigation, while refuting anti-science regressive ideologies and providing information resources to individuals who wish to do so in a civil (or not-so civil) debate environment.
 * 4) What it says on the tin. Help people think more clearly and show them sides of intellectual disputes that are thought provoking. Refrain from taking sides unless the subject matter is woo, quack and pseudoscience. Document that properly, and show why it's false. Equip such believers with ways to see how it's wrong. Don't treat e.g. other views you don't like as if they were equal to Evolution-denial. You're not helping but actually make things worse. Document woo, pseudoscience etc. Document views of public persons in the relevant movements, do it honestly and responsibly.


 * 1) "There are currently two: The first is education of the general public, the second is a repository of knowledge for skeptics and the like. For example, things like ""SPOV"" works fairly well for the last goal, but is terrible for the first one, and the general writing style is sometimes slanted heavily one way or the other. RW should probably just choose one goal and stick with it, and education of the general public is probably the better goal − most skeptics have excellent bullshit detectors and don't need RationalWiki for this. This would mean losing SPOV and some of the outright crap (which will probably never happen...)"
 * 2) Document the irrational and contradictory ideas that people have (and the people that have them) and show why they are so. Also, providing general knowledge about rationality (cognitive biases, other resources etc.)
 * 3) In my opinion, the purpose of RationalWiki is to be a 'critical thinking' wiki which explores the inherent flaws (and, in some cases, merits) in a range of social, scientific, religious, and even pseudoscientific ideas, morals, and mores, with a particular emphasis, these days, upon the media, the biases in social thought, and the increasing level of folly displayed by the anti-intellectual movement within Western civilization.


 * 1) A wiki devoted to the social development and acceptance of sciences in the United States Of America.
 * 2) To be a wiki essentially screaming "SCIENCE, BITCH!" on whatever subject it deals with
 * 3) To dispel misconceptions and aid understanding of science and other areas.


 * 1) To be rational duh!
 * 2) To analyse events, particularly those occurring on the Internet, from as non-dogmatic and rationalist-empiricist a position as possible
 * 3) To approach and discuss ideas, companies, and people in a reasoned, calm, and unbiased manner.
 * 4) Presenting a rationalist and empiricist view on any given topic.
 * 5) Rational exploration of topics.
 * 6) Presenting facts.
 * 7) To provide an objective and rational view of reality
 * 8) To provide entertaining, unbiased, and logic based information on a wide range of topics.
 * 9) To provide fact based information on non-fact based ideas and beliefs. Unfortunately sometimes the site seems to make jokes instead of providing information and facts.
 * 10) To take a rational approach, as opposed to any explicit ideological one, on matters of social, economic and scientific interest.


 * 1) I like how a balance is struck between interesting, balanced perspectives and snarkiness. I often consult RW on issues after or even before reading about them in the mainstream press and often come away enlightened and amused
 * 2) info and lols
 * 3) Informed debate with humour
 * 4) having fun while sounding rational...
 * 5) Science.  And fun.
 * 6) To Entertain and Inform the masses on issues, ideas, and persons of interest
 * 7) Education with humour
 * 8) Amusement, venting and, probably, actually informing people.


 * 1) Sane reasonable answers to see both sides of the story then come up with your own truthful conclusion with the facts in front of you


 * 1) To try to enlighten people on the issues that are commonly misinterpreted? (sorry for english i am not native)


 * 1) A place for the liberal intelligentsia to documentary idiots around the world. (no sarcasm)
 * 2) Analysis and possible criticism of various ideas, mostly from a liberal perspective
 * 3) To provide information in a liberal bias


 * 1) A (sometimes amusing) left-wing wiki that refutes religious conservatives such as conservapedia.
 * 2) To offer a helpful and sometimes humorous take on crank ideas and extreme politics from an atheist+ perspective.


 * 1) Fighting prejudices and promoting freedom of thought.
 * 2) Stick it to "all enemies of human freedom".


 * 1) Rationalism: therefore anti-feminist.


 * 1) I hope the purpose is to out all religions and all superstitions as mythology (and to show why all religions are and superstitions are mythologies, failed sciences) and to show how religious belief and superstitious belief is a danger to a healthy, forward moving and progressive society.
 * 2) I use it as a resource for studying religion.
 * 3) It's a good resource for finding information on various cranks and irrational or unsupported ideas, and the people who forward them.
 * 4) "Present a case for atheism/agnosticism, evolution, climate change, etc. in a snarky/funny way Provide arguments refuting common claims of pseudo/anti scientists. Serve as something of a warning as to which people are cray."


 * 1) As per its mission statement
 * 2) as set out in the mission statements
 * 3) Isn't that the purpose of the Mission Statement?
 * 4) Per the mission statement. Crankery, in my definition, includes politics.
 * 5) See the first three mission statements, and the fourth.
 * 6) See the mission statements for details.
 * See: mission statement (would not change)


 * 1) No purpose, just arguments.
 * 2) Once upon a time I believed that it fit those. At this point it seems to have devolved into bickering about the I/P conflict and whether or not we have rules.
 * 3) Supposed to be preventing pseudoscience, but is actually just fuelling massive flame wars


 * 1) It used to be the promotion of rationalism and sketicism. Now it's purpose is needless internet drama and a "feelz-based" approach to social justice topics.
 * 2) Should be analysis and reasoned comment but seems to be mostly sarcasm.
 * 3) To provide a place for spoiled children, autistics, and people with personality disorders to talk endlessly about nonsense, fight about nothing, viciously attack people they disagree with (particularly if they don't understand what their ideological enemies are even saying), and purport to take the high ground by making a grotesque mockery of rationalism and social justice.


 * 1) Goat.
 * 2) To serve Goat, who is Goat and shall be Goat for all time. Blessed are we who Goat.


 * 1) I actually have yet to discover that. It does look fascinating though.
 * 2) It's really unclear what it's purpose is. Is it for criticising creationists? Is it for fighting out the Israel-Palestine conflict? Is atheism part of its purpose? How does stuff like feminism or Gamergate or so on fit in? I struggle to see how Israel-Palestine or Gamergate are really linked to its current avowed mission statement.


 * 1) All of the above


 * 1) Didn't I answer this previously?


 * 1) Troll' CP with facts?


 * 1) To point out the problems with various groups - from obscure echo chambers and online communities to biases in mainstream media or society in general.


 * 1) To fulfill its mission as written, not as you want to run the place like a personal sandbox.

Improve humankind:
 * 1) For the betterment of humankind


 * 1) "I think it would be best if RW removed all politics stuff that doesn't directly relate to crank stuff or fundamentalism. I think its purpose is to act as a refutation site for crank claims and pseudoscience, not politics which is inherently opinionated. Also please stop talking about Gamergate because nobody, including those involved, has any idea what the hell they're talking about, and they talk about different things entirely."


 * 1) The truth. :/


 * 1) Would not change

Missional subjects
235 valid results, as follows:



No topics got below 50% approval.

Lowest rated 5 topics:
 * Language (52.8%)
 * Law (mainstream) (54%)
 * Astronomy (mainstream) (54.5%)
 * Politics (Israel and Palestine in Particular) (54.9%)
 * Math (56.6%)

Highest rated 5 topics:
 * Anti-vaccination movement (91.5%)
 * Alternative medicine (91.5%)
 * Conspiracy theories (91.5%)
 * Creationism (91.1%)
 * Pseudoscience (91.1%)

Upholding the mission
Question text: How well does RationalWiki uphold its current mission?

239 valid responses.

Average rating 3.806722689, median 4.



Question text: How well does RationalWiki uphold the mission you described above?

235 valid responses.

Average rating 3.854700855, median 4.



And that's about it
I excluded the suggestions about the polls -- there's a lot, they're hard to categorize, and I'm tired. Go look at them yourself!

Any thoughts? 23:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The topics people find the most important are precisely those I consider to be covered by the first two mission statements (and perhaps the third).
 * 2) 's last response to this sums up the results pretty well.
 * 3) The things that cause little to no controversy on the wiki are important, whereas one of the most controversial things (I-P) is deemed relatively unimportant.
 * 4) I'm actually surprised to see how many people think GG/SJ and related articles matter, though 176-178 votes isn't that much.
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's interesting how authoritarianism and radicalism/extremism both have around 80%, but when you ask people about a topic which features plenty examples of both&mdash;Israel-Palestine&mdash;it suddenly drops to 50%. I guess that means people are still not informed enough about the issue. So how about it, folks; who wants to learn about the Isreali-Palestine conflict? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK this is because it's not really possible to say who's right and who's wrong in the I-P conflict; I guess most people think of authoritarianism as involving Nazis and The Donald, both of which are pretty obviously wrong. The same goes for extremism.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a false dilemma, though. Factually describing the conflict doesn't necessitate us taking any 'side' (as if all the factions can be neatly divided into two sides to begin with). And with there being authoritarianism and extremism both among Israelis and Palestinians, you'd think there'd be double the amount of missional stuff to cover. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that RW is at its best when it can consistently say "you're wrong, and here's why", followed by a bunch of references. This is much more difficult when (a) there is no clear side that is "wrong" (we might say that they're all wrong), and (b) a bunch of editors have their own opinions on the matter. Now I get that most RW editors have their own opinions on something like creationism as well, but almost everyone's opinion is that creationism is stupid, which allows for both less edit warring and a consistent and clear-cut presentation of the case. With something like I-P, different people have different opinions and they aren't exactly willing to give theirs up (which might be because it is simply not possible to say who's right and who's wrong).--JorisEnter (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia also has its "Level 1 vital articles", or the ten most important articles on WP. We might create something similar on RW, containing the ten or so most important articles we have. These would include the five articles that correspond to the most important topics according to this survey (creationism, alternative medicine, anti-vaccination movement, conspiracy theory and pseudoscience), plus a few others.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was busy writing an analysis of the results but then I apparently hit some sort of key combination that deleted it all. Crap.
 * As a rule of thumb, however, article that involve clear-cut cases of who's right and who's wrong (pseudoscience, creationism etc) are popular, whereas articles that involve politics and other things that are much less obvious are unpopular. Also, "mainstream" things (astronomy, history, law) are not considered particularly missional - this may be because there's not much that can be said about them without the article becoming a condensed version of the corresponding Wikipedia article.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Joris: Yeah, sounds about right. There were quite a few on-point suggestions about having "missionality" be more like 3 categories -- "always on-mission", "sometimes on-mission", and "never on-mission". I'd bet that the low-ranked stuff would consistently fall into "sometimes". 16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Most categories have at least something that can be missional - even Gamergate stuff is an interesting exercise in some sort of authoritarianism/fundamentalism, I guess.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm. The vital articles idea certainly seems correct. RW seems to categorize people and organizations by saying "Person X supports Y, which is wrong" but doesn't in-detail explain why Y is wrong in Person X's article -- making the article about Y almost more important than the one about X. For example, GlobalResearch barely discusses the conspiracy theories -- but notes that GlobalResearch supports them. 16:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "HIGH" priority really doesn't mean anything. While there certainly are plenty of pages that are high priority, scrolling through the category doesn't tell you much about what articles actually matter. A category like "TOP" priority articles would contain the ten or so most important articles, which ideally would all be worked up to gold rating.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The link to the png is broken. Flannan Isle (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Shit, you're right. My computer can't connect to internet ATM so I can't reupload the image; sorry. 16:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato-related discussions
Where did the discussion occur in which anyone asked you to conduct this survey? Conscience (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This wasn't discussed, FCP just put the survey in the intercom.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you. Conscience (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If didn't happen, but about a hundred little catfights about what is missional did. Oh, and please make sure to remind me how a survey is violating consensus. 19:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What an odd and slippery response, but one that highlights where your problem lies. See, you do what you want unless enough people tell you not to, and even then you ignore them if you feel like it. Consensus is not you going against a majority telling you not to do something. It's a reasonable number of interested people expressing support. You didn't have authority to put your poorly designed personal survey on the top of every page on the site. You never bothered to even ask, and you're not a leader, anyone's boss, or personally responsible for changing the entire site as you appear bent on doing. I think David Gerard described your behavior and dumb survey very well:

No, this is bullshit. The survey was bogus to start with, it was falsely painted as official, it's the sort of ludicrous rubbish RW routinely pillories people for, a pile of people (e.g. me) didn't participate because of its ludicrous bogosity and you're trying to draw conclusions from it. There are literally no conclusions to be drawn from it that you didn't bring with you - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the people here who know what they're doing and understand this site support anything you do. Conscience (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you, with all those useful contributions, do know what to do? Sorry mate, but you're a joke. You can't be bothered to make a single contribution, yet you somehow feel qualified to comment upon other people's behaviour as if you are better at this than any of those who actually do something. The best sailors are ashore, as a Dutch proverb says, and I cannot help but note that you are a perfect example of this.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been on this site for many years longer than you. I now see that you can't even read. Congratulations. RW will suit your need for snap judgments and confirmation bias. Conscience (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you've been here for seven years, I can only say that you haven't done much. Having been here for a long time doesn't mean anything - having been here and actually having done something is what counts, and I can only say that you fail miserably on that criterion.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Man you're dumb. 18:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making such a useful contribution that clearly raises the level of this discussion.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate, but you're a joke. 18:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think "A horse goes into a bar. Bartender says "why the long face?"" is a joke.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * [EC]It just seems like rage boner tantrum time against FCP from all the contributions before this forum post even started. FCP even asked what he is doing that makes you so angry to fix it and to a resounding "Go away. Go away. Go away. Jesus fuck go away".  If he wants to be taken seriously, and has been championing his opinion means a lot after being a "contributor" for 7 years in various ways, why play all coy with being transparent with the how and under what other pseudonyms.  I can also champion my opinion meaning a lot because I am the emperor of Mars if you don't bother to ask for evidence :-)  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you also subliterate or are you making things up? FCP didn't ask me anything about his behavior. He asked about the mission, and consistent with my belief that he is a pushy incompetent and not caring to help him, I told him to go away. Go read my talk page and tell me you understand where you went wrong. Guys, this isn't about me. Either FCP is subject to criticisms or he is not. This pathetic pattern repeats itself so often with some of you. Conscience (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He was asking for your opinion, that was the subject since you posted it here but it was a pretty open question you could have expressed any concerns very easily instead of being shitty. Here's how someone with interpersonal skills would have done it: "My concerns aren't the mission, it's you.  Here's why..."  YOU CAN EVEN USE THAT WITH MY BLESSING.  This is really basic communication skill use.
 * It is about you when you make your claimed experience the only reason why and then complain mightily when people ask for your experience...it's fucking dumb and grossly obvious you are lying or hiding something. Every person I have seen has asked about this and you accuse others of being less than literate while you ignore inquiries.  You can accuse me of being subliterate all you want but when you ignore this at the same time it's a blast to watch :-)  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake ASSUME GOOD FAITH. I'm fed up with you guys making assumptions that if you don't know who someone is then it must be someone up to no good.  18:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I sincerely wonder what "assuming good faith" has to do with this.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the things that you & ECW have posted in this thread. Look at the assumptions you have made about somebody you don't actually know.  That s/he hasn't contributed anything, can't be bothered, isn't "qualified" to express opinions here, and is lying or hiding something.  This is what not assuming good faith looks like.  19:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * [EC] If someone goes out of their way to shove this "experience" in everyone's face like a badge but spends days doing their best to avoid answering to any possible degree, without providing other evidence, that's when my good faith ends. I am a returning sysop just shy of that long but I don't go around shoving it everyone's face that I know better than them.  I don't think I have mentioned it before actually but I might be wrong.  I feel like if I did the same it would be perfectly legit to make those same assumptions about me.
 * I am willing to be wrong but just repeating "assume good faith" is not addressing my concerns. The main one being the repetition of not liking one user and repeated claims of being an experienced user that cannot be verified.  Pointing this out just got insults in return.  As well as FCP trying to do something to hash it out.  These are not good faith or honest moves that have been addressed at all and really make the assumption of good faith difficult.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did someone go out of their way to shove this "experience" in everyone's face? It seems to me like (in this thread) Conscience expressed an opinion & JorisEnter insisted that it must be justified by experience.  20:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "hasn't contributed anything" - I'd really like to know what they have contributed
 * "can't be bothered" - well, given that they created an account but did not contribute anything, yet still claim to have been "watching" RW for many years, I wonder why they didn't contribute anything
 * "isn't qualified" - I do not consider someone who apparently hasn't done a thing around here qualified to make meaningful comments about how the wiki should be run
 * "lying or hiding something" - where the fuck did I say this?--JorisEnter (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I said that, and I stand by it, because if I was a returning user that wanted to make a substantive change to the wiki with my reputation behind it I would have logged into this account to do it or referenced it. I also could have done all sorts of trouble if I really felt incised enough to do more than type.  I like you Weasel, and I can see your point, but see it from our point of views as well.  -~ Subsound ~ 19:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC, reply to JorisEnter:) Again, this is the sort of thing I'm fed up with. Nobody owes you anything or has to justify themselves to you.  20:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Subsound:) "if I was a returning user that wanted to make a substantive change to the wiki..." So what?  Can't you comprehend that other people's actions & reasons for them might be different from your own?  I'm saying "assume good faith" and you're all just replying "we don't wanna".

Since you want to make this about me, I think it’s time to talk about intellectual honesty.

Emerald City Wanderer fares no better. Conscience (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bravo sir. 20:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "I agree that being here a long time doesn’t mean anything, so why are you infatuated with your idea that it does?"
 * Because you introduced it here: "None of the people here who know what they're doing and understand this site support anything you do." You claimed to speak for those who "really understand RationalWiki", so...it's fair to ask how you could think you speak for them.
 * Not that I agree this survey was the right thing to do, or that FCP doesn't make messes sometimes, but...Christ, people, at least be consistent.204.11.142.106 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you introduced it here: "None of the people here who know what they're doing and understand this site support anything you do." This isn't hard y'all. Me referring to people who know what they're doing and understand RW equates to me claiming that me being here a long time makes me credible how?
 * You claimed to speak for those who "really understand RationalWiki", so...it's fair to ask how you could think you speak for them. Perhaps I claimed to know what the experienced users commenting here think. If I did, that's overreaching if they disagree, which I don't see them doing. But just be honest that nobody asked me how I could think I speak for them. It's ok. Be honest. You can do it. Conscience (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid is right that people need to stop assuming bad faith for, but it would help if they were less, ah, combative. 21:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Me referring to people who know what they're doing and understand RW equates to me claiming that me being here a long time makes me credible how?" - It's you claiming to speak for the community that does work here. If you haven't been part of that community, it's fair to ask why you think you can speak for them. If you weren't claiming the right to speak for them and the implicit authority of speaking for the consensus, then your right to do so wouldn't have been questioned.
 * "But just be honest that nobody asked me how I could think I speak for them." --Joris immediately responded with "Because you, with all those useful contributions, do know what to do?". His first response was questioning your right to speak for the consensus of editors, based on your lack of being one, and your response was to bring up how long you've been here. WTF.204.11.142.106 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter
Maybe Conscience is literally Internet Hitler or maybe Conscience is the voice of the people. Nobody should care. Discussing each other is pointless. Whatever criticisms Conscience has, those should be the focus. Please, for the disbelief of god. 21:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No prob. -~ Subsound ~ 21:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it should be. S/he shouldn't be called on to justify eir presence here or right to express opinions.  And yes, this does matter.  This is part of a pattern & it needs to stop.  21:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone shut the fuck up for a bit & actually read the survey results
Why are folks getting all angried up about this? Robledo (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support for the mission as currently framed.
 * 2) Mission generally being realised, though with room for improvement.
 * 3) Some interesting qualitative data in the purpose of RW section: mostly positive and supportive of the site in general.
 * Read this forum page start to finish and you'll see some of the reasons why. If you're sincerely curious, I can suggest related threads on other pages.   21:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read the forum page from start to finish. There is, however, no solid evidence in the survey results that says much, if anything, needs to change. Once people realise that, I'm (charitably) assuming they'll be more inclined to sheath their e-penises and STFU. Robledo (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For reference, the strongest "pro-change" faction is one which thinks the mission is great and should be reworded, and many more people supported "don't change" for every question. 22:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, do you think you'll be able to figure out a way to claim there's consensus for you plowing ahead to changeanything big? Hopefully two people have given at least neutral comments about something important somewhere! Worse comes to worse, you could find some stubs to delete to make yourself feel better. Conscience (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alas, Conscience, you have revealed my plans -- all along, this survey was nothing but a sham, a cover for my secret (?) desire to change the mission and rule all of RationalWiki. 18:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to be honest here and say that this whole controversy was stupid. I can't believe we are arguing about FCP's intent. I understand that this wasn't a community effort but the results aren't binding.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not stupid. It's an established pattern with FCP. He can claim he wants peace and order, but he's got a history of loudly demanding attention and shaking things up. Conscience (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I get that but this survey isn't going to do that. Assuming that is his goal, it doesn't seem he will be able to get support for that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 18:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we please discuss the survey?
So there's some weird fighting about stuff I don't really understand. The important thing is that the survey exists and while it exists we might as well use it to a) see what it can tell us and/or b) see what any future survey might be about. For instance we could flip the question on the mission on its head and ask "How upset would you be if this topic disappeared from the site"... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure either why folks are fighting over this either - "Person X did not participate in the survey" does not mean "The survey is invalid", and the same goes for "Person Y conducted this survey without the approval of persons X and Z". To be honest I don't think that "flipping the question on its head" is going to work; while people may not consider a subject particularly missional, most of them still won't want it deleted.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The best guideline on what people actually want on the site is the to do list. And that seems to mean lots of nazis and pseudoscience, and quite a bit on sex and race. A poll opposed by a sizeable group of users shows only that some subset of the site readership doesn't seem that bothered. Annquin (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of a survey as such has merit. However, the next time around we should better discuss what questions to ask and how to ask them. The fact that surveys - even elections - have a return rate lower than 1 and some groups don't want to participate does not have to negate their usefullnes... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to ask Joris Enter and Emerald City Wanderer whether someone who's been on this site for barely more than 24 hours and has zero substantive edits is entitled to comment or use the word we. This is apparently very very important to these guardians of reason. I'm simply not sure your opinion matters. Conscience (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello world
Hello world. Don&#39;t Average (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So About Israel/Palestine...
I think theoretically it fits the mission. I don't really remember the answer I gave to it. It's not too hard on paper to report the "facts", the issue with conflicts like these is that both sides have their version of facts which at times differ greatly. Both sides also have media outlets and PR machines whose entire job has been to spin the truth on the ground to the rest of the world, and they've both been at it for decades. There's no scientific consensus to point to or hard logic involved. We don't like to admit it, but "truth" is often written after the fact, in the midst of things, it is much more murky. There is a similar problem with politics "in the midst" of things, not only is it strongly influenced by the emotion of whatever time it is being reported, and trying to actively campaign for a certain candidate using the website as a platform will only lead to issues that really won't be of much consequence after the election is over. Hentropy (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As 141 noted (whether it was here or in the Bar I don't know), I-P is indeed an interesting example of both authoritarianism and fundamentalism in action. It tends to cause enormous shitfits on this site, however, so many people aren't too fond of this (especially as the fights generally involve only a few very specific people).--JorisEnter (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)