Forum:Possibly the most opinionated site I've been to

< Index | Site-related discussion

I found this site when I looked for the "friend argument" on google in relation to gay rights. Upon further inspection, I now see that this site is incredibly biased towards the left-wing movement. I am not a republican, and my views go more towards the left. However, I do believe that if you're calling your website the rational wiki, you end up looking like the Conservapedia of the left wing. That is to say heavily opinionated articles without many facts to support both sides, and usually no information from the opposing side. It's as if your personnel are trying to create a story. If you're wondering, my main concern is in regards to user Ryulong. Now, I'm not sure if all of this is your intention, but if you do wish to have a fair and unbiased site for information, I heavily suggest reviewing your articles. I can also help out with supporting the "opposing" side if you'd like. Thanks for your attention. 62.31.209.216 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Reality has a liberal bias as has been said. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We have no reason to act like the opposing side to most of our sites articles are anything but ridiculous ideas. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinionated =/= wrong. If wrong, say why. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 19:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We're wrong because we aren't doing imposing the Fairness Doctrine on our website and cause Ryulong is eevviiillll Fuzzy. So obvious. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You're being dogpiled by people who are totally reasonable in what they're asserting. But, I'm gonna be a bit unreasonable and say you're straight up wrong about whatever shit has you offended. You're wrong about something, and aren't interested in actively defending whatever mealy mouthed right-wing ideals you've seen attacked. I fully acknowledge that this is unreasonable, but so is saying "you've got a point to make and that's automatically a bad thing."

So bring your ideas to the table. Assert them or defend them on a rational basis. Or feel free to keep whining ambiguously about bias, and make no progress. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

While I am no big fan of Ryulong I find your comments to be rather vague. If you find something wrong with a particular article you are welcome - indeed encouraged - to make a specific comment on the article talk page. If what you perceive to be an error is a simple matter of reportable fact you you are most welcome to edit the page in question and link to a reliable source which demonstrates your point. (Though if you think that your edit might be controversial or unsupported then the talk page is your friend.) Please feel free to contribute. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not being a fan of Ryulong is completely normal. Making one of your first edits on a wiki be an unsubstantiated personal attack on him is a sign of some kind of unhealthy obsession that seems to exclusively strike people with ludicrously ill-informed opinions about journalistic ethics. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Ryulong wasn't the main point of my response - though your contribution may have made him so.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The main problem I have is that I don't have very much time to make edits, but I do care very much about the truth when it comes to politics. I am not right wing, I am a British resident who votes Labour. I'd say most of my beliefs are more in favor of artistic and social freedom. Journalistic freedom is also something I believe in heavily. However, when a page gives an article saying that, for example, giving money to a charity to grant female developers the funds to create a videogame is "spiteful", it's hard to take it seriously(however, it's clear many people on this website do take this seriously). I could argue for hours in the talk page and we would not come to any agreement. The comments above your own show this. 62.31.209.216 (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that reality really does have a leftish bias. Which is not to say I approve of the excesses in "identity politics" and some of the activists on the fringe can be Social Stalinists. Nevertheless, I became a huge fan of this site because of two things that made it seem reasonable: 1. the Gamergate entry is excellent in explaining the controversy about which I'd known almost nothing, and 2. the Sam Harris entry properly points out that for all his atheism cred, he is a bigot and adheres to some authoritarian and radical ideas -- that fact is backed up with with copious quotes from the man himself and links to the source in which they were said. I do recall agreeing with someone on Twitter that some RW entry or other was inaccurate in a leftist-tilting way, but don't recall what it was. All in all, however, this site is a great resource I generally trust.---Mona- (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

1. This screams balance fallacy!
2. Ryulong only edits 3 articles, so your "main concern" is a non-concern.

There. Now I'm gonna focus my attention on more worthwhile things. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)