RationalWiki talk:Mentions/Archive1

Links
Does this page also include links or does the site actually need to be discussed in the article/post/whatever? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure, but considering the small number at this point I'd go with both. Peter Urist for Mod! 07:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What about encyclopedia entries from ie: Perv site #1 and Slightly less pervy site #2? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't really date those so well... Maybe a misc section at the bottom? We're on quite a few wikis come to think of it. Peter Urist for Mod! 07:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't want to add anything from ED. 07:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but we could simply NSFW mark it. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I still find it too foul and offensive a site to even patron. 07:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * More or less so than Metapedia? Peter Urist for Mod! 07:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I've never really checked out Metapedia. I don't really plan to, either. 07:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) I do not think we should link to any Wiki pages at all. We can be less picky than Wikipedia, but we should stick to the more reputable or infamous blogs. 08:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds vague enough for our purposes. Peter Urist for Mod! 08:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ^^There's something oddly sinister about that phrase.  08:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First thing that came into my mind was Emperor Palpatine. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You people are very suspicious. What harm could I possibly do..? Peter Urist for Mod! (MW) 08:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WIGO-style voting?
I think we may like? 03:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? TyBother me 03:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Abuz Zubair.
"RationalWiki is maintained by 14 to 24 year old biased hipster atheist. Written in a patronizing and narcissistic tone their menial site gets barely any attention, so they have to seek it by being provocative in the hopes that someone will be offended enough to actually care. This is not an insult, nor am I trying to degrade anyone, it is just a fact.

Whoever gets their facts from a website like that, whether Muslim or not, isn't deserving a morsel of anyones time anyway. Besides, what would you sue them for? These are teenagers whose belongings range from dirty socks to twilight posters. Good luck brother."

Classic. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 04:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a 14 to 24 year old hipster atheist who owns both dirty socks and Twilight posters. 04:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're now the face of this website. 04:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Colorado State Militias
Just love their Primary Widget Area. :) PongoOrangutans are sceptical 21:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless


Did you know that we are mentioned in the resource back section (there is a lot of 'resources for freethinkers' material) of Greta Christina's book? I bought it a few days ago, but I don't know how to list it. Would it be listed by when the book was published? ±KnightOfTL;DR longissimus non legeri 03:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, put it under March (according to Amazon), or whenever the paperback was published. Peter Subsisting on honey 03:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

On someone's Twitter profile
"Y R There Monkeys???" aka @TakeThatDarwin has How come there are still monkeys? on their Twitter profile. Scream!! (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Move this to its own page?
The monthly RW is dead, but this page isn't. Could a move to RationalWiki:Mentions work? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 20:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * *cough* FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 17:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the URL really bothering you that much? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, yes indeed. (it also feels weird to keep only part of the "project" alive) FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Japanese source
大用庫智, 市野学, and 高橋達二. "緩い対称性を持つ因果的価値関数の認知的妥当性と N 本腕バンディット問題におけるその有効性." 人工知能学会論文誌 30.2 (2015): 403-416.

It just lists List of cognitive biases in a footnote. Worth it to add? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's Japanese moron. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Moron? Or someone who doesn't speak Chinese and/or Japanese? There is a difference. Christopher (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh, I should've known: It's a .jp website. 20:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also one would expect erudite race scholars such as yourself to be able to at least recognise the hiragana syllabary. Unless you're just some jumped up SJW jerk on the Internet. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. And I thought liberals had a monopoly on pretension. 21:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Christopher (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey that's convenient. If I'm a "troll" that means you don't have to answer my question on Darwinian versus phylogenetic classification. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, what is this question? Christopher (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Still haven't answered. Christopher (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this count as scholarly?
http://mekabay.com/opinion/religious_freedom.pdf 16:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In formatting? Maybe. In content/intent, I don't think so. It reads as an opinion piece by scientist outside his/her field. MarmotHead (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds about right. 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly
[http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.04267.pdf Zollo, Fabiana, et al. "Debunking in a World of Tribes." arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.04267 (2015).] Does arXiv count?


 * Better than nothing! Even better if it's in any way noteworthy, e.g. has cites - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That study by Andrea Ballatore
Don't you think it's a bit odd for Cracked, of all websites, to be classified as conspirational? (Sorry for taking so long to ask this, but I saw it only now.) Faunas (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a little odd. It seems like their ratings of conspiratorial vs not conspiratorial are based on the results they got, so maybe they found Cracked's dark underbelly? 13:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, our article on Cracked states thusly: "While you're generally safe in relaxing standards of due diligence for this website, it's not as ironclad as, say, Snopes.". Faunas (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Another Arxiv
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.04145.pdf 03:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * WHY CAN'T WE GET ON VIXRA HUH - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Explain xkcd
Roko's Basilisk gets a mention. Flannan Isle (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Ruben Boyd
[http://www.rubenboyd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Science-Society-The-Power-of-False-Beliefs-A-Modern-Pseudoscience-and-Public-Lovestory-2509028.pdf Boyd, Ruben. "The Power of False Beliefs: A Modern Pseudoscience and Public Love Story."]

Google Scholar counts it as scholarly. 22:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar includes all manner of ridiculous bullshit, and I wouldn't call it a reliable indication that something isn't ridiculous bullshit. Or in this case, they've just indexed academics' home pages. This doesn't appear to be ridiculous bullshit, but it does appear to be a blog post in the format of a paper, rather than something e.g. published - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Expert Commentary Series"
http://www.ecbt.org/images/articles/Ad_Hominem_Attacks_Against_Investigative_Journalist_Brian_Deer.pdf 05:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Note to self
Work into article at a later time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) We're being cited as an authorative reference by the . Who'd have thunk it?
 * 2) Also being cited by .
 * 3) Dunno who these people are, but they cite us as a source. You thought the Anglican Church citing us was ironical? Dig this; RW — a skeptic website — is here being cited as a source by an actual fake news outlet.

AlterNet cites us on Goats
From here:

As written by an actual professor of international affairs and comparative literature at Pennsylvania State University. We're YUUUUGE! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Moar moar moar
Yup. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.snopes.com/elongated-skulls-found-peru-aliens/
 * http://www.theweek.co.uk/conspiracy-theories/62926/elvis-is-alive-and-11-more-top-conspiracy-theories
 * Ooh, snopes? Good, goooood.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah! They've actually cited us like... 10 times atleast. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Bonus
Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/01/10/resurgent-fascism-in-america/ (Some blog?)
 * http://canadafreepress.com/article/doj-inspector-general-to-investigate-fbis-handling-of-email-scandal (Fake news outlets citing us again?)

pansci.asia
We're being cited by what is allegedly Taiwan's biggest science/tech blog/community.(see: https://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpansci.asia%2Faboutus )

They recommend us: https://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpansci.asia%2Farchives%2F112033

Couldn't make the links smaller for some reason, sorry. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Slate.fr cites our Deep Web article
Neat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Translated article: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.fr%2Fstory%2F140342%2Fle-renseignement-militaire-4chan&edit-text=
 * Original link: http://www.slate.fr/story/140342/le-renseignement-militaire-4chan

This rebuttal cites us in a quotemine
http://www.integralworld.net/pdf/Climbing11.pdf Reflections on Ken Wilber’s “The Religion of Tomorrow”] by Frank Visser. 14:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Does plagiarism count?
Indian Chemical News, December 2014 - the article on cryonics (pp32-35) ends with a slab straight out of Cryonics - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? Christopher (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Diana Fleischman appreciated that we cited her
I am cited in this excellent rationalwiki entry for “soy boy” #soyboy #canIputthisonmyCV https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soy_boy CowHouse (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Book about AI
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5U9tDwAAQBAJ 00:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * what's the quote? - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Book not available on b-ok
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-16920-6_25 17:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

thesis
https://dspace.lib.uom.gr/bitstream/2159/23448/4/RaptiMatinaMsc2019.pdf

Regularly, useful idiots are common users that are not fully conscious of the purposes of the group, therefore it is tricky to distinguish them. (“Useful Idiot - RationalWiki” n.d.) “Useful Idiot - RationalWiki.” n.d. Accessed August 13, 2019. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Useful_idiot.

18:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Bongolian (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

study about r/kotakuinaction
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8894031 https://sci-hub.se/10.1109/TPC.2019.2946942 "Dramapedia: Wiki-related drama and issues including Wikipedia, Rationalwiki, etc" 13:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

on manosphere publications
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.07600.pdf 18:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Added. Bongolian (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

on incels
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.08293.pdf 22:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Added. Bongolian (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

lol we're mentioned in this comparative religion reading text
https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/open-textbooks/9/ 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The cat still exists! The radioactive potato didn't decay and trigger the sensor!  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Added. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

amphiboly
https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/5997 16:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added. Bongolian (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

indigenous science
This becomes clear in debates about whether indigenous knowledges should be considered ‘science’. A stark instance of an argument against this proposition is the ‘Indigenous science’ page on RationalWiki, a Wiki whose stated aims include refuting the anti-science movement. The culture of RationalWiki is in some ways anti-racist, for example, at the time of writing the wiki’s authors classified ‘racialism’ as ‘pseudoscientific bullshit’ [RationalWiki contributors, 2019]. However, the ‘Indigenous science’ page reveals the scientistic limits of this anti-racism. It classified indigenous science (singular) as ‘a pseudoscience’ that ‘should not be confused with legitimate research about indigenous people and their worldviews, such as in anthropology’ [RationalWiki contributors, 2018]. It asserted that the view of some Western-trained Australian Indigenous scientists that Indigenous knowledge is science is ‘unsupportable’ [Australian Science Media Centre, 2018; RationalWiki contributors, 2018]. This is Eurocentric gatekeeping by Western science’s advocates, and hardly the sole such example [e.g. Hikuroa, 2017; Nhalevilo, 2013; Nicholas, 2019]. Notwithstanding some indigenous peoples’ reservations about eliding distinctions between indigenous knowledges and Western science (discussed in section 4 below), it demonstrates the power of conferring the word ‘science’ upon anything. This is an important strategic reason some Indigenous scientists describe themselves using terms such as ‘STEMoriginal’ [Moggridge, 2018] or assert that Indigenous Australians were the world’s first scientists [de Napoli, 2018; Diamond, 2019], while at the same time maintaining distinct identities for Indigenous and Western sciences.

https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/19/02/JCOM_1902_2020_A02

12:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fucking lol. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What's so funny? — Oxyaena Harass  13:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The race realists don't love us
lol. It's Elsevier, do we have a category for "sucking vampire squid on science itself" - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They do love to hate us though. 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

a css book lol
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4842-5750-0_1 21:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

epistemology paper
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02698595.2020.1767891 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)