2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $10064.65Goal: $10000

Essay:A Possible Direction for RationalWiki

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by RationalWiki users.
(see the page history for a list of the contributors)
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

This is essentially copied from my forum post from earlier today, but since very few of us are members there thus far, I thought I'd cross-post here for greater exposure.

Keep in mind this may be the ravings of a madwoman, only a half hour after she got up in the morning, but have a look and see if there are parts you agree or disagree with.

First of all, based on the way things are shaping up, I see the first and most obvious aspect of RW as refutation. Which is to say, every one of those "this is what people think" items on the front page should be accompanied by an article (or more) refuting their claims. Whether side-by-side comparisons or responsive essays, refutation is necessary.

Below that, we need a "bedrock" of basic information, written to our purposes rather than the drier, more exhaustive style of WP. Things like my own "homosexuality" and "same-sex marriage" articles, which support the refutations, essays, debates and such. Our toolkit, as it were.

Augmenting all this we have essays and debates, both of which make the site very personal and active, and as has been often said, a "neutral ground" for ideas to come together.

And finally, we need silliness. The articles on "tripe" or "faggot", the 1-minute bannings, the cheeky stuff we put on each others' talk pages, the ongoing lambasting of the Schlafly family (except John). We need that to keep that great happy atmosphere that's really kept my spirits up so far.

Commentary on all the above is welcome and encouraged.