Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election close on Sunday.

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Debate:RationalWiki's position is intellectually bankrupt

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Tricksy.

(BTW, "Ration" instead of "Rational" is my bad typing. I usually abbreviate to RW, but in this context that would be ambiguous. I changed it from "RW" and stuffed it up. Tricksy 01:38, 16 February 2009 (EST))

You have just shown how ridiculous your position is. You (collectively) condemn CP because of it's "misinformation" but you now claim credit for intentionally creating misinformation, which of course you will WIGO so that you can condemn. You indicate that you have an unknown number of socks so you can continue to create misinformation for the unsuspecting. Essentially you are saying that RW is responsible for some unknown fraction of CP's information, thus if you simply left CP to it's own devices it's information quality would improve and be less worthy of criticism. You all need to re-read your own propoganda, notably:

"Therefore, it is not that we are actively working against Conservapedia; 
we simply chronicle its own gradual implosion."

Mostly you seem to create misinformation simply to see it WIGOed. What a pack of hypocrites.

Also, you call Andy's identity checking a "paranoid information request" when in fact he was attempting to ensure that "Rod Weathers" was not a sock. So Andy's six or so (we will assume the others elevated to sysop-hood received similar emails) attempts at filtering out frauds resulted in the outing of one fraud and the severe limitation to the on-site abilities of another. So you constantly attempt to attack CP, encourage others to do likewise (and kindly supply them with a manual), and cry "Paranoia" when he attempts to stop the attacks.

Sure, the environment at CP is poisonous, and Andy's thought processes are a mystery best left in the dark. I admit that I have become most disillusioned. But, if you contribute to the negative state of the environment you forfeit any right to comment on it. If you contribute to the misinformation you forfeit any right to criticise it.

You all seriously need to get a life. Tricksy 19:20, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks Tricky! I now know why my life has gone so horribly wrong. Ace McWickedRevolt 19:24, 15 February 2009 (EST)
We only create a bit of the misinformation. We can't match the BS that teh Assfly throws out daily. And that is not propoganda. And we almost never WIGO ourselves- if we do, it is due to lack of knowledge of the person being a parodist. And if the U.S. damages Iraq, does it lose the right to criticise it? No, of course not. As for its information quality to improve, are you serious? CP cannot improve its information status. We don't add the nuttiest parts. Like Obama being Muslim- we didn't add that! We do not constantly attack CP either- some of us sometimes create socks to parody them. As for the manual, there is much debate surronding it. I think you are the intellectually bankrupt one, my friend. --"CURtalk 19:29, 15 February 2009 (EST)
While the going on of the minor blogapedia that is CP has not been of great deal of interest of mine recently I must say that you are seriously misrepresenting this site. Most of us went to CP with good intentions. I tried to improve information but was derailed at every point by sysops on power trips. Andy has created this environment by allowing uneducated, ignorant people with grudges against the world to hold power over his teaching resource.
I am unaware of that much WIGOing of misinformation going on unless it is written by one if the genuine sysops. Playing stupid power games and adding misinformation as a parodist is no different from what the sysops are doing, you just don't take it seriously. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 19:30, 15 February 2009 (EST)
I agree with everything CUR wrote. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 19:32, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Do you feel all right?! --"CURtalk 19:33, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Congratulatons, Tricksey, you have been pwned by CUR. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ I like depressed oxides
And that is extremely dificcult to have have happen to you. --"CURtalk 19:38, 15 February 2009 (EST)
You know, I think he came here only to say that. --"CURtalk 19:56, 15 February 2009 (EST)

(ec)::::"We only create a bit of misinformation". Two points. Firstly when does "a bit" become "enough". It's like Lincoln saying "I will only keep a few slaves". Secondly, Publius has here indicated that RW socks are created some unknown quantity, and hinting that it is substantial. You can't eat your cake and have it, too. Propoganda is saying that you are not actively working against CP when you undoubtedly, and now admitedly, are.

The US manufactures (and has used) weapons of mass destruction and so had absolutely no right to criticise Irag's WOMD (actual or not). It could only criticise the Iraqi govt's mistreatment of its people because the US did not similarly mistreat its own people.

So nobody ever WIGOed a post by Bugler or Rod after you all became confident that they were parodists? Pardon my scepticism on that count.

If Publius was adding x amount misinformation, and stops, then the new information being added on CP has improved by x amount. Not hard to figure out. I am not saying that the information is (or would be) generally good, but it would be an improvement if you would all stop degrading what is there to begin with.

"Most of us went to CP with good intentions. I tried to improve information but was derailed at every point by sysops on power trips. Andy has created this environment by allowing uneducated, ignorant people with grudges against the world to hold power over his teaching resource." I accept that as completely true. That has pretty much been my experience, too. But when did you stop trying to improve and begin trying to degrade (you collectively, not you personally)?

Of course adding misinformation as a parodist or "deep cover" is different to when it is done by a "genuine sysop". Except possibly for TK, the "genuine sysops" are NOT trying to enflame the environment.

I currently do not know how to improve CP. That is why I have not posted for a little while. And I do think it may soon implode, with only Andy, Ed and Terry left. But I will either directly address my criticisms on CP or some other site/platform. I will not fraudulently add information that I know to be incorrect, and I will not intentially stir up the posionous environment.

Tell you what. Test it. Your boycott is backwards, try a useful one. Continue your WIGO, but post nothing to CP.Tricksy 20:01, 15 February 2009 (EST)

How can you draw a distinction between slaves and misinformation? What we do is exactly the same as what non-parodists are doing- and it is endorsed by Andy! He wants the parodists there- because the parodists are the only ones who give him what he wants- total agreement. As for WIGOing, we may have, but only to say, 'Look, x doesn't know x is a parodist!' And doing something bad has no implications on whether you can critize someone. I can critize someone for being clumsy even if I am. --"CURtalk 20:06, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Tricksy, just to let you know something - I created a parody page titled Liberal Obsession. After I outed my sock the page was kept despite myself and others knowing and telling Aschlafly that it should be deleted as it was pure parody. The entry remains on CP to this day - even though it is a known parody. The reason for this is that Schlafly doesnt care - parody or not it plays into his "Liberal Bad" playbook. Just like Buglers articles which also remain. Ace McWickedRevolt 20:07, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Precisely what my evil card-playing friend said. --"CURtalk 20:09, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Why is everybody saying "we"? & Why how has RodWeathers exposed RationalWiki as "intellectually bankrupt"? As far as I'm aware Publius/RodWeathers acted alone in this, as did Fretfulporpentine/Bugler, & any other parodists at CP. RationalWiki as a whole isn't liable for what people choose to do at other sites. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)
This is exactly the case. I had all of two laudatory posts at RW before I took Rod into action, and I only started chatting here once I was given block rights. I in no way represented Rationalwiki or any of its editors, and no one here had any idea I was Rod, thus no organization or cooperation involved. I never WIGO'd myself (I'm not quite that vain), and anyone who did WIGO me had no idea if I was here. Like so many others, I became a rationalwikian after being stunned at Andy's madness. You can address the ethics of my actions as you will, but to conflate it to be some communal RationalWikian failure is absurd. PubliusTalk 20:22, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Although to be fair, whilst Andy has created most of the problems with CP, we have created an environment here where parodist are lauded for their deeds. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 20:29, 15 February 2009 (EST)
There's the very curious aspect. We praise when Andy praises. Successful parody is the stuff which, from Andy's viewpoint, is an overall benefit to CP. Thus, when we laud successful parodists, we are lauding stuff which is, from Andy's viewpoint, not an attack. On what other wiki is it even possible to have parodists? A parodist at CP is merely someone who adopts the party-line without actually believing it, unlike 90% of the users there, who simply avoid issues on which party-line is clear and they disagree. What would a parodist look like at RW, a rabid skeptic and atheist who comes off as a real asshole? What would it accomplish? We all disagree on everything, and political litmus tests are in no way valuable to "advancement" (heck, there's not even a scheme of advancement, or any benefit, since everyone is sysopped) PubliusTalk 20:44, 15 February 2009 (EST)
I like to imagine the Wikipedia parodist: someone who adds information to an article about how the Earth is billions of years old, while knowing that it is actually only been around 6000 years! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! The fools! They fell for it! It hasn't been reverted! DickTurpis 21:50, 15 February 2009 (EST)
If you want proof that a parodist would not work on here, look at me. I have been sysopped, and I fail a few of the litmus tests. Not that there really are any. --"CURtalk 20:47, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Ed likes parodist because they do still write articles that tow the party line saving him having to do any work. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 20:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Furthermore, to address the absurd objection "But you now claim credit for intentionally creating misinformation, which of course you will WIGO so that you can condemn." I have never WIGO'd any information, true or false (or more importantly, just plain crazy), that I've created, nor pointed it out for condemnation. Heck, I've never WIGO'd anything at all. You also assume that all potential sysops had information demanded of them? Sorry, I've talked to several of them, and that was not the case. Nor did his information request uncover anything - I never refused him information. But Andy will interpret as Andy will interpret PubliusTalk 20:35, 15 February 2009 (EST)

(undent) Just for clarity. Anywhere above where I say "you" it is to be taken as RationalWiki collectively rather than individuals. Publius created Rod, and RationalWiki as a group recognised the falsity, and in various pages etc (including WIGO) endorsed it. Likewise FP created Bugler and RationalWiki as a community recognised the falsity, and essentially endorsed it. I actually agree with most of what you (multiple) have posted above about the CP environment (and your (multiple) bad experiences of it, which matches to some extent my own) and Andy's peculiar (to say the least) logic, and even the CP habit of endorsing the parodists and their content. But it is hypocrisy to undertake an action and then criticise another for undertaking that same action, particular if you criticise it first and THEN do it as well. (And clumsiness is hardly a behaviour. That analogy just doesn't fit.) I was not comparing misinformation to slavery (I assume when you typed "draw a distinction" you meant "draw a comparison" but had a slip of the brain). I was illustrating the situation of condemning an action in someone else (that they undertake habitually and often) while undertaking the same action (to a much lesser extent). Yes I did assume that the others were asked for similar information, as I stated. If they were not, then that only makes the request (or demand as you called it) LESS paranoid as Andy targetted the actual parodists. You did not refuse, but it looks as if you did not respond in time to allay Andy's suspicions. ILLUSTRATION: A man has several people staying in his guest house. He decides to give some of them keys so that they can let themselves in. Several get their keys, but he leaves a note asking a couple of guests to show him their ID first. One admits that he is not who he said he was, and belongs to a group which despises the owner of the guest house. The other never gets the note, and never gets a key, and is watched a little more closely. How is the owner of the guest house being paranoid in this situation? I am not saying that Andy is not paranoid. I am saying that this is not an example of paranoia. You will do what you will do, and I have no expectation of changing it. Let me modify what I originally posted: The methodology that Publius laid out will render RationalWiki's position intellectually bankrupt if RationalWiki endorses it. So far, a small number of users here have endorsed it, above.Tricksy 21:29, 15 February 2009 (EST)

May I direct you and your faux outrage at a couple of our fine articles? Just doing my part to help. --Kels 21:36, 15 February 2009 (EST)
(EC)Groan. First of all, we spotted it, but we did not know who it is. We were amused. But we did not WIGO something that we knew was our own work. And hypocrisy does not mean that someone should not critize- just that they are guilty of the same thing. But how are we hypocrites? We critize CP for being stupid, and some of us help it along occainsionally. Not hypocrisy, just helping people. See, the more extreme CP becomes, the less influence it has. By making it more extreme, it will be taken less seriously, therefore less people will be taken in by its web of lies. As for Publius' decision, RationalWiki does not endorse it- we do. The users do, not the site. There is a crucial difference. --"CURtalk 21:37, 15 February 2009 (EST)
"Anywhere above where I say "you" it is to be taken as RationalWiki collectively rather than individuals" = lazy and illogical. RatWiki is the nestene consciousness now? Good to know. User:Mei 21:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Another Doctor Who fan?! --"CURtalk 21:41, 15 February 2009 (EST)
No, not really. Tricky is right about one thing, though. Aschlafly's paranoia towards parodists is reasonable given the circumstances. User:Mei 21:43, 15 February 2009 (EST)
The community IS the users. RationalWiki is the community. The same applies to CP, it (the community) is considered fair game as a whole because of the actions of its users. Like I said, you will do what you will do. I do think that the reversed boycott that I mentioned is something you should try, though. Keep watching, but see if the anthill is as crazed as you think after you have stopped poking it.Tricksy 21:45, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Is CP fair game as a whole because of the actions of parodists? And if not how do you define a real member of the community? User:Mei 21:50, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Nevertheless, Tricksy makes some good points. Andy isn't paranoid for trying to identify me as real. However, understand that "not responding in time" meant "was away in the evening when Andy emailed, arrived home at 3AM and answered early the next morning." There was no reason for him to doubt my story (largely true) other than that he wanted to. I said and did nothing that a reasonable true person wouldn't have. PubliusTalk 21:50, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I think the distinction should be made between vandalism and parody. Rod did both, the parody as Rod, and, allegedly, a misinformation campaign as other unnamed users. The latter is the more questionable of his actions. I'd condemn it, but I've done a little of the same myself (some quite recently, most of it is still there). Parody is a different issue from vandalism because the edits by parodists are wanted over there. Andy could do away with all parody on CP this instant if he wanted to; all he has to do is block every parodist. He doesn't do it. DickTurpis 21:57, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Precisely. We give the Assfly what he wants- 100% agreement. We just don't mean it. --"CURtalk 22:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Let us also not forget that we've been saying for quite some time that Rod was a parodist, not because we had any information he didn't, but because we can tell these things much more effectively than Andy can, apparently. Andy didn't listen to us, and I'm sure plenty of his accolades read what we said, and could easily have passed it along. Maybe some day he'll learn. DickTurpis 22:07, 15 February 2009 (EST)
No, he won't. --"CURtalk 22:09, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I've alwayd condemned the vandals, but that's not why I enjoy RW, it's the pointing out of the hilarious idiocy of Andy and his rascals. And I agree with DickTurpis that there's a huge difference between vandalism and parody. I was going to explain it, but I bet you know the difference too. While I loathe vandals, I can sometimes stand parodists, especially when it turns out nobody can tell the difference between Andy's unintended lunacy and the parodists' intended idiocy. --GTac 22:12, 15 February 2009 (EST)

A surefire way for Andy to get rid of the parodists: 1) invent another Sunday insight like"Jesus invented ice cream!" 2) ban everyone who agrees with it.
Every editor who defended his Teenagers Are Teh Shit and Jesus Invented Laughter crap was eventually outed as a parodist. DickTurpis 22:17, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Oh and as someone said earlier in this debate, no parodist managed to be as hilariously foolish as Andy. Honestly. I'm sorry to admit it, but I've been known to do a fair bit of trolling on some internet forums, and I am quite good at inciting huge debates by stating idiotic things, even if I say so myself. But reading CP, I know I'll never ever be as good a troll as Andy is. That man is a God among trolls. It's too bad that he appears to be serious... --GTac 22:22, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Hmmm... Showing the world that CP editors believe that Obama is a Muslim, that homosexuality is a disease, that abortion causes breast cancer, that thimerosal causes autism, etc. makes RW intellectually bankrupt. Hmmm... Sterilewalkie-talkie 08:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Tricksy protests against Rationalwiki

Easy edit bottom button[edit]

The inherent problem in criticising the contributions of individual RW editors at CP is that what someone may regard as parody is accepted as a significant insight by Andy. So is that vandalism? And RW as an entity does not endorse anything. There is no representative group which speaks on behalf of the majority of editors. There may be a consensus on certain issues but if an individual congratulates another for something they did then that is purely their personal opinion. RationalWiki is a forum of individuals and there is no mechanism for it to either condone or condemn the actions of any editor at another site. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 09:30, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Exactly. RationalWiki's "position" really doesn't mean anything because, unlike Conservapedia, we don't have a party line. There are very few subjects on which RW editors' opinions would be anywhere near unanimous, & subversive activities at CP certainly isn't one of them. There are some editors who do have parody accounts, others who condone it, some who disapprove, plenty more who don't really care either way. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Of course you have a party line. It's to be rational. And you can't justify that without using rationality, which leads to a circular argument, which is clearly irrational. Might as well accept that there is no objective truth, therefor homeopathy works, and all atheists are fat. 159.45.129.16 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Wdzydze strach.jpg
Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 19:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)