Forum:Political Objectivity on RationalWiki

< Index | Politics discussion

I've just recently discovered this website. I love it for the logical break down and analysis of various conspiracy and pseudo-scientific theories. I think most of the sections are very top notch, but one section I don't feel holds up to the level of objectivity you are aiming for in this community is the political section.

Disclosure: My observations are anecdotal and not scientifically compiled. I did not do any analysis of statistics or trends to come to this conclusion, it is based on personal impressions from reading around 16 or so pages in the political section. I also do not have any party affiliation or leaning, as my views are comprised of bits from all across the entire ideological spectrum.

I've noticed that various pages in the political section seems to have a lot of vitriol and personal opinion inserted into the descriptions of whatever is being spoken on. These personal opinions may be intended to provide humor or express that individual users displeasure with the particular issue or person, but in my eyes it detracts from the overall value added and objectivity of those entries by being petty and emotional when it should be objective and logical.

This site seems to lean farther to the left than right, but I have seen examples of such language and tone on both sides of the aisle here. I'm not going to provide individual examples for dickering over, I would rather that people actually take an inventory of these entries on their own partially because I think that's more useful as a learning tool, and mainly because I'm entirely too lazy to compile a comprehensive list myself. Just something to think about

Cheers,^{— Unsigned, by: user:Malikav / talk / contribs}

Malikav is a Mikemikev sock.Greenteas (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you point out any issues you have with individual articles on those articles' talkpages; you're more likely to get the issue fixed that way. FuzzyCatPotato of the Cheesy Coke sackers (talk/stalk) 16:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So tone argument and a third-party tu quoque of sorts, followed by a form of do your own research. A tasty blend. ArcticVixen (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)