Essay talk:Rome Viharo revisits Rational Wiki, a critique

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
See the main article on this topic: Rome Viharo

Proof[edit]

This discussion was moved here from Talk:Rome Viharo revisits Rational Wiki, a critique. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Proof I am the author https://twitter.com/rome_viharo/status/588439324900786178 104.175.42.84 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Proof that you are the author lies in the fact that nobody else in the world gives a flying one. BicyclewheelModerator 20:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Libel[edit]

Some of these accusations are quite serious. I'm happy to work with you on any material you think is libelous, but it would be helpful if you could direct me to that material more directly. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been tried before. No one cared. Look at my article on Rational Wiki (Rome Viharo), not sure where you want to begin. First off, even having any article about me on this is ridiculous, I'm a no body. What is the evidence that I am a known internet troll and that's the lead of my biography? Known where? Where is the evidence that warrants me as a 'psuedoscience/sheldrake' promoter? Where is the evidence that WWHP has published a 'conspiracy theory'? The article claims I have 'honed my bullshit' for a decade..what's the evidence of this bullshit? These are all personally motivated opinions. Someone has an opinion of me? fine, write a blog about it. Don't publish random opinions of someone and publish them as factual conclusions. Consider; what problem does having an article on Rational Wiki solve? Am I promoting something online that is dangerous or misleading? If so, where? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I was going to reply but then had a lot of work to do. Let's do this as best we can.
  1. The conspiracy theory claim is well substantiated with a reliable source that documents some things you have said as exactly that. With a relatively expert deconstruction of why those particular claims are conspiracy theories. While I appreciate how insulting that might feel, we do have a mission and duty to document that sort of thing on this wiki, and nothing seems out-of-bounds in terms of honest representation of the available published facts.
That's not true. I've made a direct claim that editors on Wikipedia harassed me. That's something that happened to me. If a woman claims she was raped by 5 men, would you say she had a conspiracy theory men were out to rape her? If she offered evidence of the rape, would you continue to phrase it that way? You're taking ONE sentence I made in a very specific context to Alex's question and using it as a way to frame me as a nut. I've made it very clear on my site that his has nothing to do with skeptic ideology, it has to do with behaviors. The individuals I target declare *themselves* to be skeptic activists.104.175.42.84 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. "Bullshit", to rationalwiki means pseudoscientific ideas that aren't supported by any appropriate scientific literature, asserted with the kind of authority or weight that science bears. The article outlines what that means.
  1. What pseudoscientific views do I 'promote'?? If I promote or endorse anything, I blog about it. Because I facscilitate content does not mean I endorse or condone it. Can we be professional here?? I'm sorry, but comments on a blog along with 500 others is not promoting, it's commenting. Getting hired to design architecture for a website and assist with editorial issues on Wikipedia is not promoting, it's my job description. I've developed technology for brands and publishers to promote and advertise content, does that mean I endorse the brands and promote their content? I find you're being very shallow here in your consideration, and if you had the full facts of my biography, you would not make them. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. The problem being solved is that people come here looking for plain language, frank discussions of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, fringe politics and their ilk. Whether you intended to or not, you have created publications that drift into that territory. Our article exists as a guide for people who want a quick check on your more questionable statements.
Then criticize me for what that content actually is saying! If you're framing me as a troll and promoter of pseudoscience just because work I do in one area that has nothing to do with any ideology carries over to a few people you don't like, you're misleading your audience, plain and simple. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. Being a nobody: this is kinda a big deal to me, even if I don't necessarily follow the rest of your points. I'll be honest: I don't like the notion of rationalwiki being the biggest name source on the internet about someone, particularly when our article is (appropriately or inappropriately) negative. I can understand how and why that would interfere with living a normal life. I'm not exactly comfortable with the current state of affairs, and I think I'd need to see some pretty convincing arguments in a deletion discussion. If that discussion happens, I'm nominally leaning towards deleting the article, barring convincing counter-argument. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. THANK YOU 104.175.42.84 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. That discussion is happening, and you might want to transcribe especially that last point over there. PacWalker 02:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Google knowledge graph[edit]

You have no idea how that tech is going to work, do you? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Very little, I've read the paper, much of it goes over my head and to be honest I'm skeptical that it will solve contextualization problems like this, but at least the problems of online contextualization are being addressed and I'm hopeful.104.175.42.84 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Critique of the Critique[edit]

Rational Wiki presents itself as a trusted publisher in 'truth'

No. We do not deal in truth here. Truth is philosophy; we deal in fact and evidence.

Behind the scenes at Rational Wiki their are abuses and personal vendettas that rule it's community

Behind the scenes? You mean, out in the open, because this is a mobocracy.

and they have overstepped their boundaries or sphere of relevance into online harassment inside of a peculiar culture war and can employ any number of 'dirty tricks' found in political campaigns.
  1. We're not engaged in a culture war here. Many different viewpoints reign here, as many as there are users.
  2. The boundaries are whatever we deem them to be. They are adequately defined in our Mission Statement.
  3. Online harassment? Please state in full the specific online harassment that RW has committed, or that people have committed on the behalf of RW.
It's probably not hard to imagine that I have very progressive viewpoints, political or otherwise - so it's disturbing to me to see an online community that professes progressive ideals collaborate using such abuses in communication and media that is the lowest of our progressive ideals online.

RationalWiki does not hold progressive ideals. While there are members here that are progressive, there are just as many who are not. I myself am not progressive - I am a conservative, or possibly an authoritarian fascist, depending on how you would like to define political beliefs.

Personally, I do not care what political beliefs you hold.

The article on me fails to mention that I am a serial entrepreneur - having sold one company and with a new one currently funded with a US patent pending, have been twice CEO and held very responsible officer positions in various media or tech based industries. It fails to note that I've developed a prototype for online digital libraries that offers collaborative curation. It fails to mention that I have a creative writing and development past as both a music producer and a filmmaker and producer of comedy shorts and viral videos. Links for these things are still online to this day, yet none of them used while links no longer available, referring to obscure discussion forum posts, less than a dozen in nature over 8 years ago, are evidenced in the entire article.
  1. None of these items really have a lot of relevance to what your article is about. So, you're a media strategist and creative dude. Excuse me while I shrug; I have many hats myself, but an article on me would probably describe me as a "technician".
  2. Not seeing a libel yet.
The article completely fails to mention why I would be notable at all

We don't have a notability policy. You do not need to be notable to be featured here. Rational Wiki is NOT Wikipedia.

I have published and exposed, using clear data and evidence that is virtually irrefutable, patterns of abuse, reputation distortion, online bullying occurring both on Wikipedia and Rational Wiki with members of their communities.

Citation and/or source, please. Specifics required.

The contextualization the article wants you to believe about me is that this is a 'conspiracy theory', therefore, I am now a 'conspiracy theorist' - a new age wacko and now bullshit artist. Words like these not only are libelous, professionally harmful, are also used as weasel words to inflame a response in their communities. Remarkably, there is nothing about me online promoting any conspiracy theory, about anything, ever.

According to this link, you state that there is a conspiracy of skeptics that are personally targeting you. Other than your say-so, there is no corroborating evidence that proves this. Without corroborating evidence, this belief in the existence of a conspiracy against you becomes a conspiracy theory. You state your evidence is clear and convincing; that has not been proven to be so. You say it is virtually irrefutable; this has not been proven to be so.

  1. Is it or is it not true that you believe there to be a conspiracy of skeptics against you?
  2. Do you have any corroborating evidence of such a conspiracy beyond your own website?
"Words like these not only are libelous, professionally harmful, are also used as weasel words to inflame a response in their communities.
  1. What professional harm have you sustained? Please enumerate in incidents and dollars.
  2. Since you consider the allegation that you believe there is a conspiracy of skeptics targeting you to be libel, why did you state it in the interview and on the website "Wikipedia, We Have a Problem"? Is the allegation untrue? If untrue, why did you state it?
More disturbingly - the writers at Rational Wiki take creative works I have done in the past, fail to note their self declared narrative or artistic natures, cherry picked random comments about them - and intentionally distort the context to further support their narrative of me. This is not only harmful to me personally, but it's also highly irresponsible publishing.
  1. Please list the creative works and show where they are stated to be creative works, so that this can be edited.
  2. How have you been personally harmed? Please enumerate in incidents and dollars.
The talk was a story, not a thesis

Please show where in the TEDx talk this is indicated.

It's easy for any independent third party can verify these things - and that's what so disturbing. Rational Wiki claims to defend a 'rational evidence based' paradigm, yet actually fail to review evidence to publish personal vendettas.
  1. Why do you believe this is personal vendetta? Please name those who have the personal vendetta against you here on RationalWiki.
  2. I have attempted to verify your statements that links here and the TEDx talk were "creative works". I am unable to locate any such evidence or statement that this is so. So, no, it cannot be easily verified.
Finding anonymous discussions from over 8 - 10 years ago and random picking comments is stalking, not editorializing.

That is false. It is not stalking and does not meet any definition of the term in any civil or criminal jurisdiction in the USA. You are being hyperbolic. That does not serve you well.

Other than my work in exposing editing abuses on Wikipedia - there is nothing in my life to be 'red flagged' and harassed by on Rational Wiki.
  1. What you SAY are editing abuses on Wikipedia. There are many who do not agree with you on that. I have no opinion on the matter myself.
  2. You are not being harassed by RationalWiki. No one here has sought you out; we are not engaged in active measures against you. All that exists here is an article - which you are free to edit, such edits being viewed, discussed, and modified at will by members of RationalWiki.--Castaigne (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What Vote, Where?[edit]

On my talk page, an online friend who came in to help noted that there were 9 votes to delete my page on Rational Wiki, and only 6 to keep it. Did rational wiki delete my page as the consensus showed? No. Not only is Rational Wiki engaging in abuse, it can't even respect it's own consensus building mechanism when it comes to personal grudges.

I've checked both the 2014 Archives and 2015 Archives to see if your page was voted on. It's never come up for discussion of deletion. Where was this vote held? Can you show it to me? --Castaigne (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If he means the vote here, where he was, if I'm to be generous and count the initiating nomination, one of two delete votes, he simply can't count. PacWalker 21:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I should not have said 'voted' I should have said 'stated' and adjusted my essay to the fact, which inherently does not change. Nine people here stated that it should be deleted while 6 wanted it - yet it's still here.104.175.42.84 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you neither decide nor understand how our deletion process works. PacWalker 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the claim is unfounded. --Castaigne (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Not really, see the adjusted essay. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Separate votes in three separate places do not count all together. Votes are not cumulative. You would need to have a vote in which all 15 people voted at the same time to have 9 deletes and 6 keeps. That didn't happen. Read up on our deletion process, and if you feel it necessary, issue an arbitration for deletion in the appropriate place. --Castaigne (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I was tired of him ranting about two long-past keep decisions, so he his article is now up for deletion again. Everyone reading this is invited to chime in over at AfD. PacWalker 01:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that this is also an admission of meatpuppetry. Just saying. PacWalker 22:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't deny that it was a friend of mine who came in to help with this issue. Call that what you will, it does not change the facts of what he says. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. He was an active participant in the discussion so it doesn't seem like only "a friend" was involved
  2. The exact same points are being made in this essay were made during the deletion argument
  3. Changing the essay's accusations while they are discussed
  4. The statement near the end of the original discussion:
As a fan of all three valued systems, I too will also say "meh". Keep or delete, either way I win. I was hoping that the more rational minds here would see that the only way for Rational Wiki to win would be doing the right thing. But a few of the editors here have 'boob' mind and it's always the irrational players that ruin it for the community. That is, until AL 0 1 2 is released. :) RomeViharo (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Including claims that this article will be made a moot point when OS 0 1 2 comes out in 2014 that RW would get invites to, which did not come out or send out invites, but was no longer promoted anyways:
1.) For the background of OS 0 1 2, from my POV, is located here. http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/about-al-0-1-2/ I've been working on this for 11 years now. This year the actual platform is coming out. I accept that my methodologies in developing it were unorthodox, but to me that makes it more colorful, not cranky. If the idea of OS 0 1 2 is a crank idea, there is only one way to demonstrate it, by attacking the AL 0 1 2 platform when it comes out. I'll even give anyone here an invite to it in a few weeks. Other than that, I dont promote the OS 0 1 2 meme anymore and havent since 2007. I have even been meaning to take the site down. I hardly think that is worthy of an article, but that is just my opinion. I think if anyone critiques the idea, they should probably wait to see the platform, because any opinion of os 0 1 2 is going to be held in that light historically. Also, I dont promote OS 0 1 2 anymore so by writing about something that is 7 - 11 years old, it means Rational Wiki are the only ones promoting it. RomeViharo (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
...make this discussion seem repetitive and disingenuous from skimming these pages. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup. It's going to be the same clusterfuck that I see in his talk page archives. Especially since he keeps changing the goddamn essay. And he won't respond to my specific questions, I know. --Castaigne (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to respond to each and every question and will do so shortly.104.175.42.84 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

RW only counts votes numbered in the keep section, and only counts deletions numbered in the delete section. Otherwise, they're just people's opinions. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Magical thinking. Assigning a number count to people's opinions does not change the fact that they are still just opinions. Assigning a number count does not make those opinions any more real or factual. Surely I do not need to inform you of this? Nothing magical happens with numbers, sorry to disappoint you. That's not how factual evidence is determined. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
^This has got to be among the stupidest arguments in a long thread of whining. Someone seems not to understand the function of a ballot. Tell me, is accepting the outcome of a general election (if free & fair, of course) also "magical thinking", since it's all "just opinions"? Seriously, this is moving into LogicMaster territory. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Look...[edit]

If you think that we somehow miscounted all two people who voted for deletion, you're wrong. If you think a consensus honestly supports deleting your article, nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, shut up. The deletion process worked EXACTLY as intended. Shoo. PacWalker 23:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, since you're ignoring me and editing away: we only count actual votes, not goats or other comments. That leaves two to a lot. If you think a consensus of RW editors would support deleting your article, go nominate it for deletion. PacWalker 23:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anyone, clearly I am confronting this issue directly. There were nine voices expressing deletion in the talk pages, and only 6 supporting keeping it. Whatever process you're doing here, clearly it is not rational consensus building based on reasoned debate, because if it was, the article would be deleted. Reddit works on voting too, doesn't mean the top article is true. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There were two votes for deletion. If the other seven wanted to vote for deletion, they could have. They did not. If you want it deleted, go nominate it for deletion, but please understand that we will respect our process whether you like it or not. PacWalker 00:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Lol dude, comments under "Goat" aren't delete votes. Don't be silly. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The reference of my essay is to comments, statements supporting as opposed to votes. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Then it's meaningless, because those don't decide what gets deleted here. PacWalker 01:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You now have the remarkable privilege of seeing our AfD system at work AGAIN. I wonder what'll happen. PacWalker 01:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments and statements supporting do not count. Only votes count.
Failure to acknowledge this will be personally regarded by me as a trolling attempt. --Castaigne (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You're all not following this discussion very closely. I am not claiming that supporting comments from majority editors 'count' towards your faulty and misleading methodology for article deletion. I am claiming that a majority consensus is useless in your faulted methodology, you're just counting votes with cranky comments attached to them as if that means something rational happened in the discussion. The fact that ANY number of community members here believed this article was an attack piece should be all the red flag that you need that it is. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the Wikipedia article on World War I is an attack piece on the Dalai Lama; that is all the red flag they need that it is. PacWalker 05:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not. They would require evidence, sources, and reasoned argument. I'm supplying those and you're just sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "Im not listening". 104.175.42.84 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Your own personal webs(h)ite[edit]

...is not a source we are obliged to take at face value. Please stop acting as though it must be true, or that your claims there to have been joking previously should be taken seriously, Mr. Ray Comfort Viharo. PacWalker 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to take it at face value, I'm asking you to check the evidence behind what you publish, especially if you claim to be an evidenced based website. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that your website is evidence that you have a website and not more. PacWalker 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a website that has links directly on Wikipedia to what the website is asserting. You can't shrug off evidence just because I'm the publisher of that evidence. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay. To be blunt with you, I have no desire to use your website. And I won't. If you want to post "evidence" of whatever, cut your shitty middleman out. PacWalker 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
^. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
then stop kidding yourself this is an evidence based website. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Difflinks are evidence. Your !blog isn't. Got it yet? PacWalker 01:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Correct, and my site is an archive of the diff links, next to each claim made. Indeed, some of the diffs and evidence is actually published in this essay. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Evidence you present is not absolute. Independent corroborated evidence by someone not you is required to confirm. Otherwise, it's just your say-so, which is insufficient. --Castaigne (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Its ONE THE SITE. See, look here is some of it. Stop playing your arbitrary fake game of peer review. You're not looking at the evidence either because your too lazy to read it or you realize there is really not much of an argument you could give in counter to it. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll make it simple for you. Where is the evidence that is NOT on your site and that I can get to WITHOUT going to your site? --Castaigne (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've already told you, some of it is in the essay, and the rest is on Wikipedia. If you're too lazy to use a website which provides you with the links for you to corroborate the evidence yourself, don't expect me to redo the work for you. Since the article mentions my website, you would think that you would actually check the damn website to see if what you're saying is true. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TEH LIBALZ[edit]

You mentioned my name in this !article, but not everything else I have ever done. By your logic, this is libel. Please delete this essay at once. Kthx. PacWalker 01:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If that's the logic you think I'm using you're not really following this conversation. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)