Site-related discussion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


[view] [edit]

Can we get improved link previews, like wikipedia?

I link RW to a lot of places, and the preview generally only shows the article name. Wikipedia links show the article summary and main image in previews. I've noticed it, so far, on Facebook and Discord.

I believe this is the current standard, I assume mediawiki has a plugin or setting for it.Ericblank (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC), by: Ericblank / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean but it might have something to do with Wikidata.Wikipedia's W.svg Christopher (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not wikidata, it's just a way of embedding metadata into the page, so it formats better on social media, for example having a permalink, embedded image, description (useful for visually impaired users) and other data. This is the mediawiki extension for it: --Ericblank (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Long term goals

The long term goals of RationalWiki are:

3 year plan

  • Develop financial, technical, and management independence from the founder
  • Start engaging the media on issues of promoting science and critical thinking

5 year plan

  • Become a major player within communities and between other organizations with similar values
  • Promote policy and rational discourse on a wider level

10 year plan
(Let's dream big!)

  • Become the single largest provider of free content from a scientific and rational perspective
  • Develop global contacts and support to become a major player in policy initiatives related to our mission
  • Be able to help direct the discourse on topics of science and critical thinking around the world

These goals were written around 6½ years ago, on 19 November 2010; they also appear on the official RMF website. Presumably, this means that the 3-year and 5-year goals should have already been achieved, and that RationalWiki should be well on its way working to fulfill its 10-year objectives. On a scale of 0 to 10, to what extent do you agree that this is true, for each of the goals listed?
t 07:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wigovoteup.png RationalWiki is doing just fine

Our Alexa rank is like, in the 7000s. That's pretty good. We do need to work on ways to increase that Alexa rank though to hit goal #3. Vive Liberté! 10:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wigovotedown.png RationalWiki, more like TrashionalWiki

  1. 1: Independence: No. Trent alone pays the bills and knows the passwords. The current board might finally be able to fix this.
    2: Engage the media: No. Nobody has mentioned RationalWiki in an interview with any journalist ever.
    3: Major Player / Wider Level: Maybe. Alexa rank is a poor measure of visibility; our [ rank is also ~19,000]. Despite that, we do appear to be one of the top anti-conspiracy-theory websites worldwide, up there with Snopes and friends.
    4: Single Largest Provider of Rationality: Hell no.
    5: Global contacts: Hell no. RationalWiki representatives have attended 0 conferences on public discourse, science education, or anything at all.
    6: Help discourse: Yeah, absolutely. It's the best place to link people about the fallacy they're making and then fail to explain why they're making that fallacy.
    </discussion> The above may seem very negative, but that's because these long term goals are very tough (perhaps impossible). To be honest, I think RationalWiki is doing fine in terms of promoting rationality among those who are skeptics. The two biggest issues are [1] decreasing editor contributions (which prevents more thorough debunks or debunks of new events) and [2] a stain of political bias (to wit, "TrashionalWiki", which prevents broader acceptance of RW). Both of these are also very difficult issues. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    Goodpost.gif Great to see a dose of reality here.t 08:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    2: Engage the media: difficult to do when nearly everyone on RW is anonymous.
    3: Major Player / Wider Level: Some of the domains within RW are excellent (fallacies, conspiracies, pseudoscience, creationism/evolution), others less so. Generally, quality content should be able attract more of the same. General science pages are rarely as good as what's on WP, so they will be hard to compete with as far as getting knowledgeable editors.
    5: Global contacts: Anonymity is again a hindrance, as is funding. …
    Regarding the so called political bias, I've come to the conclusion that this has become necessary with the rise of Trump and fake news. We can't not cover the bullshit factory that is Trumposphere, and therefore we need to include all the other political bullshitters. If this is really a problem with credibility of other articles, perhaps politics could be loosely walled off in their own space like most of the Conservapedia articles? Bongolian (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, bullshit is often political and politics is often bullshit. Both deserve coverage. The problem is mostly that RW is seen as partisan, not that it covers political topics at all. (Snopes also covers political topics, which has also led many conservatives to think it's full of shit.) Snopes seems to do better when it can "show" that something is bullshit -- think video or images. We also do better if we can "show" why someone is stupid -- think racist quotes, "worst of X" videos -- instead of using references and our own interpretations. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    While we are on the subject of political bias and accuracy, my my. I probably agree more with this essay than the writer themself.
    I understand that many editors of this site have their political leanings. That's fine. But they should understand that every terrible article that purports to supports their respective ideologies actually undermines them. They will have on-the-fence readers think to themselves, are these the best arguments that people on this side of the political spectrum have to offer? That in order to promote this ideology, it becomes necessarily to brush inconvenient facts and arguments under the carpet? Or worse still, resort to alternative facts? If so, you'd soon find the fence-sitters on the other side. I hope people have this mentality while they edit RW.
    I was drawn to this site not particularly because I happen to agree with what it says (to some extent), but because the sheer insanity of Conservapedia nudged me slightly to RW's side of the political spectrum. RW is simply less crazy than Conservapedia, though that's not saying much. (Side note: which means, I expect that I won't be here on RW for much longer, since I hang around the Conservapedia-space most of the time, but I've learned that few among the old guard are still around.)
    As an apolitical non-American (apolitical with respect to US politics as well as that of my own country), RW's politics-related articles look terrible to me. This is especially so for topics regarding non-Western countries -- I'm talking about this sort of “quality”.
    Never mind the bias, the article on my country is so riddled with factual inaccuracies it rivals this. Yes, I understand that my country is not always right, but I see little effort to give credit where it is due. And if this site's editors want to critique my country, they fail to do so -- there's so much more to be denounced and/or analyzed about my country (about politics, and also about mission-related topics like the state of fundamentalism and general superstition and woo). Instead the article only mentions the tired, cliché, stereotypical criticisms, now with 50% less factsTM.
    To be fair, I realize the contributors to the article are mostly inactive/dead, but I expect that more casual readers who don't check the fossil record would happily apply guilt by association and simply discredit RW in its entirety, and all its editors.
    (If you ask me, why don't I edit the said article myself, I have no intention of sparking an edit war. In its current state, the article doesn't need fixing, I think it's so terrible it needs to be vaporized, along with most of RW's politics-related articles. Furthermore, as I said, I'm quite apolitical. I don't pretend to fully understand the complexities of politics in my country, or in any other country, for that matter. I hope that certain high-fructose corn syrup-consuming editors of this wiki can similarly learn to be humble, lest they begin posting their pseudo-intellectual analyses of unfamiliar countries from an armchair.)
    If you want to know more, please message me personally. I have no idea how to send or receive private messages through a wiki yet. t 12:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    You have some valid points, User:Joaquín Martínez. Bear in mind that not every edit sparks an edit war. Users come and go, and not everyone is strongly attached to their edits, nor should they be in all cases. In the case of the article you referred to, Dhirubhai Ambani, the primary content contributor hasn't contributed anything at all since December, so may not be around anymore anyway. If you think you can improve an article, by all means do so, your edits will have longer staying power if they have links to quality references. If you think an article is so bad or non-missional that should be deleted, just stick this at the top of the page: "{{afd|(reason)}}, where you fill in the "(reason)" part. That will initiate (hopefully) a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Bongolian (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    As for 5. Global contacts, no I don't count as one. XD t 12:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Snopes is taking our place on the internet, and should be considered our main competition. If they started a wiki today, we'd become irrelevant tomorrow. More than ever, civilization needs a non-profit organization to combat cranks, if not to change minds then at least to embolden critical thinkers. Stop dicking around, fundraise 365 and hire some staff. Frybread (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wigovoteneutral.png Goat

  • Just to display my avoid any confusion: as a board member, it is my understanding that these "long term goals" are being discussed here as a mere point of novelty, dating back to a past era of unbridled optimism (and, perhaps, limited self-knowledge). While of apparent historical (and snarky) value, these goals should not be confused with any sort of explicit policy actively set in motion by the currently sitting RMF board. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
As Joaquín pointed out, they are on the rationalmedia website. That website really needs updating, it still contains a link to rationalblogs on the front page. Christopher (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, so perhaps we're not doing as well as we want to. But hey, if we have helped even ONE person combat irrationality, then I believe that one person vindicates all of our efforts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
That one person could be me. Learning about how to think somewhat rationally thanks to this site has helped me spot the bias in some of its articles.t 09:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

What about interviews?

Hi all, I'm a longtime reader and finally decided to take the plunge and see if there is anything I can do to give back and contribute to RW. Before diving in, I want to be thoroughly prepared to meet the standards and goals of the site. I am wondering about interviews. Is it acceptable to reach out to someone who is RW-worthy or who might offer a unique and credible perspective on a given subject and include that interview material in the article itself? — Unsigned, by: Ragle / talk / contribs

As long as you cite your source, I don't see any reason why not. Just make sure you don't plagiarise and I have no problems with it. Meh (You) 11:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Yahoo Answers guy

Yahoo Answers: Is RationalWiki a bigoted ideological cesspool?

From "The Kingdom of God is Within You":

That's one of the most bigoted ideological cesspools of Antitheistic disinformation. Its proponents even pass it off as atheistic, and that's disinformation. Atheists don't have beliefs about God, the Bible, and Christians to evangelize.

I was being overly polite to call RationalWiki's doctrinal fallacies and derogatory falsehoods, "disinformation". I should have called them, "bigoted slurs".

From "Brad":

So you think the information contained within rationalwiki is all bad, and your evidence for this is one out of the hundreds of thousands of entries it contains that you happen to disagree with. Is that what you're saying?

Unrelatedly, is there any consensus on whether YouTube comments or Yahoo Answers are worse? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Facebook comments under common news sources (MSNBC, New York Times, New Yorker) are worse. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do you even care, Fuzzy? Creating a siege mentality? Or the usual "we piss people off, we must do something right" self-congratulation? Or do you actually care? You already inoculated yourself against any criticism. That's the purpose of RW:PISSED and SPOV (aka "yes, it's biased, hence we can claim anything!" argument). You have the social justice crowd left only, and drop-in visitors from Google. Anti-creationists, atheist, skeptics, people who fucking love science, rationalists, the edutainment-loving crowd — a hugely popular and growing sector — should flock to the project, but they don't. Of course. You provide little benefit. Many articles are riddled with nonsense. You support the Blackmailer's view on Freedom of Speech. No intelligent discourse can be found. Articles on e.g. Free Will, a hot topic right now, add nothing to the discourse and aren't even entertaining to read. They are just a waste of time that could go into reading Wikipedia, or better specialized sources. You have incorporated blatant pseudo-science into many an article, e.g. "levels of analysis" on "oppression and privilege" in the Social Justice article that are nothing but cringe-worthy. Where original research would be great to have, e.g. anatomy of the flame wars/contro-manufactuversies in the a/s movement, you offer extreme one sided propaganda that makes no attempt of understanding anything. Like before, one is better off reading the views of the protagonists themselves instead of wasting time with your PR rehash of their words. And don't say one could make improvements. No employed, mentally sane person can keep up with the level of burning zeal coming from certain quarters. ~ Aneris 16:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Then why are you still hear posting walls of text no one will read? Petey Plane (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
1) I hope it will improve. 2) I want to speak up 3) I deem it useful to, occasionally, undermine the conformity. 4) It's easy, too. 5) If not useful to improve anything, it tends to make the other side even more zealous, and this helps to make the project more transparent. Ideally, the RW would be more transparent and ditch the mission statement and adjust to what it really is about now, i.e. intersectional critical race theory and legacy work on creationism and woo. I also have no problem with another site that peddles this ideology. But I dislike it, that the RW disguises itself as an "enlightenment-based" project (however you want to call this, reasonable, rational, critical-thinking, etc.) when it has evidently abandoned that long ago. ~ Aneris 16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The debunking of the religious worldview on this site remains excellent; your myopic focus on the SJW topics blinds you to the treasure of anti-ignorance material we have. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Why in the name of fuck is free will a "hot topic"? And where? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do I post criticisms of RW? First because they're usually insanely dumb and funny and second because there's a possibility it might help RW improve itself. Or, as you say, because I'm clearly trying to construct a siege narrative. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Inevitably, when you have a source that takes any kind of editorial position, no matter how justified, people will see that as biased against them. And then the bias fallacy fills in the rest: they're wrong because they're biased, and they're bad because they're wrong. Wikipedia proves that people will still say this all the time even if you bend over backwards to create the best sense of neutrality possible. We are ideological, especially on the religious subjects the poster in the yahoo answers page suggests. The rational counter-charge is "So what? Are we wrong? How so?" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed! The vast majority of internet criticism falls under that category -- the remainder might be useful, tho. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous sysop here. I don't think RW is a 'bigoted cesspool', but I do think the stance we've taken on social justice and feminism (e.g. privilege, Anita, the like) is not good. I think we're too extreme when it comes to viewing issues about feminism, namely that we tend to oppose anyone who criticizes it. I think that's a little too clannish, and that we shouldn't be blindly loyal to the group perjoratively called the 'SJWs'. That's my main criticism of this site's actual content. Now the behind-the-scenes is another matter entirely... (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

RW fell to the SJW menace in approximately ... 2008 - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Whose blog is that anyways? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Stabby the Misanthrope, one of our old-timers - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo Answers guy is back

One has to give them points for trying. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

And for persistence. FuzzyCatPotato of the Rhyming Cows (talk/stalk) 00:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
What is their obsession with our article on charity of all things? Like that's a particularly representative article or something? It's almost AfD-worthy considering its general encyclopedic nature (e.g. like the now-deleted article called Immigration). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
And again. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe s/he gets brownie points for each post? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

He took a 3 day break

Each Yahoo Answer that attacks RW is another member of the army that rises against us. I tremble before their might -- their magnificence. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"This question sounds like mental flatulence". Someone just nailed it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Is Rationalwiki serious? I tried to edit something and a pretty troll-like person just keeps blanking it.

Is that Rev.Percy just a troll that's taken over, making Rationalwiki a joke site, or someone's personal blog-dynasty? I used to link to this site, now it seems to be run by yahoos. I tried entering some very well-sourced material and just keep getting the whole thing deleted with the helpful comment of "bullshit". WTF--this is the behavior I would expect from Irrationalwiki LMM (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LMM! Now, let's see... You tried to uncritically enter the following exact source material into our otherwise snarktastic page on playing doctor Ayurveda. Also, the reply you recieved (see link) was like 20,000+ symbols long, so you got a reply allright. You were even canvassed by me to join the discussion, so nobody left you out. Further, another editor locked the page, not me, to prevent you from whipping up an edit war over your otherwise unmotivated additions. I can agree that the comment "bullshit" wasn't too constructive (though perfectly descriptive), yet I feel I made that up to you by going on to skeptically analyze the source you relied on so heavily back-to-back. I would honestly love to hear your thoughts on my dissection of the WHO report (which I've thanked you personally for providing us with). If I may ask your personal view;
Also, "Irrationalwiki"? "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh my FSM... that icon edit. XD Ru1138 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
What is a 'pretty troll' like person (as distinct from an ordinary troll, or an ugly one) - or is 'pretty' used to mean 'rather'? And is RW being confused with Uncyclopedia (and Sophia-worship). (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

How do you have multiple names for an article?

The title might be a bit misleading but I didn't know how to word it better. Anyway, I noticed that in the search bar if you type in something relating an article, even if it's not the name, it takes you right to it (for example 11th September 2001, September 11, September 11 attacks , 9-11 all take you to 9/11). I just wanted to know how do you give your articles multiple names like that.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You can create a redirect to the actual article title, simply by creating a page with #REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]] as its content (replace PAGENAME with the appropriate title).--JorisEnter (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

A talk page is locked, and I am unable to discuss a change with the rest of the site. The main article is not locked, but the talk page is, so I am now caught in an edit war that will last until I'm either given a means to discuss the change or am banned. — Unsigned, by: BraindeadSlob / talk / contribs

You can normally discuss things on the other user's talkpage too (speaking of which, there happens to be a thread about this very topic at the bottom of my talkpage at the moment). And the article talkpage is only autoconfirm-protected, so you should be able to edit it soon enough. (talk) 02:17, 14 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
Unlocked. It will be relocked if necessary. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Why, exactly, would a talk page be locked, but not the article??? Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I had been wondering about that too. I believe it was because GGers were doxxing people on the talk page (why the hell they didn't do that in the article itself is not clear).--JorisEnter (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Probably both have been locked and someone either forgot to unlock the talk page when the article was unlocked or forgot to set the same expiry date on both of them. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Site name should be changed to Feminist Wiki

I looked up two articles and the bias was palpable. A site purporting to promote rational thought should present facts and not opinion.-— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Then maybe next time you could question our facts in our articles instead of our site name, yea? <-< 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with FCP. I mean I'm not going to contest that there's a feminist bias here, but I don't personally think it's bad enough to warrant the time and effort required to enact significant changes. We're not tumblr-level feminist, so we're ok. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato this user advises to post all citations and evidences of stated bias in the article talkpages for purposes of review.FAMAS (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
First language English not is FAMAS guess at a. Pippa (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotatothis user mistakenly pinged the user with the nick of FuzzyCatPotato in earlier reply.FAMAS (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC) @Pippaassertion made in error and it is contradictory under the rationalist framework to perform assumptions on users and pass them as assertion.FAMAS (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Beep. Boop. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with a significant chunk of what European feminism pushes. (In the U.S. it's still not mainstream, and hopefully won't be.) But that said, a rational site predicted on classically liberal values and empiricism is going to be supportive of women's equality and against misogyny. That's appropriate. ---Mona- (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Feminism oversimplifies the issues, though. The current discussion in the Red Pill Movement (as opposed to the Men's Rights Movement) is not so much about the status of men as compared to women, but rather about the sexual hierarchy of alphas, women, betas, gammas, omegas, etc. Alphas are in a position where they can mistreat women and get away with it, but women are also in a position where they can (and often do) mistreat betas and get away with it. Alphas would argue that women whose hearts get broken by the "bad boys" they select are getting their just deserts, since they could have had a nice beta man, but they opted to reject such men as too boring and weak. (Even the ancient ploy in which alphas seduce women through false promises of marriage wouldn't work if women insisted on saving their virginity till the actual wedding night; so there is ultimately a countermeasure for every PUA trick in the book.)
But actually, Red Pillers would say that the situation is not even benefiting alphas in the long run, because eventually these guys want to settle down but find it challenging to do so without exposing themselves to a high risk situation with few compensating rewards, given the dysfunctional nature of gender relations in western society. The standard advice, then, is to look overseas. Red Pillers don't actually hate all women, they just despise most American women, so I wonder if that even counts as misogyny. That would be like saying that a woman who despises a particular kind of man is a misandrist. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
With some of that I agree. Women have and hold sexual power over straight men. In sexual dynamics women are not quite the Constant Victim some feminists would have them be. Sometimes I wonder if these theorists have raised any straight sons. The fear of and puzzlement at the female gender can be strong.---Mona- (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the issue with this sexual hierarchy thing is the same as the issues with many radical feminist "theories": you can always start with a vague conclusion (e.g. "society is divided into alphas, women, betas, gammas, and omegas" or "female characters being plot motivators is misogyny") and stretch things to fit them. I'm not saying that these phenomena don't exist, but I would be careful of the way feminists (or red-pillers) tries to fit everything into their nice, neat little hierarchies and power-dynamics. They simultaneously oversimplify things and make them more complicated than they really are.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with feminism, and it belongs into the fold of progessivism and the left. The problem really is a pseudo-science problem as was uncovered in the so-called “science war” — namely postmodernism and in this context, feminist theory. The new thing is an update. I would not pin this down to waves or sides of feminists, either, since a postmodernist feminists can still maintain non-pomo-feminists aspects, more power to that. But currently postmodernist feminist theory is clearly a strong influence, whether it's Sarkeesian or the whole Critical Race Theory/Intersectionality nonsense. Actually it might be a “joining if forces” and it's that which pronounces postmodernism (CRT comes out of other stuff, but pomo is the common ground). Just ask yourself how workable a model is when the experts cannot even agree which of those supposed intersectional categories count, how many and in what way. Some propose dozens of categories, others favour the triple oppression idea, with just three (race/gender/class). SJWs typically diacount class more or less altogether, but take on things like body or handicaps as important. It's pseudoscience rubbish all the way down. It always sounds like they could measure “oppression” or something and how things add up. The RW speaks of “models of analysis” — links to a natural science oriented article. But at the end of the day it's either trivially true (yes, racism exists, yes poor women face additional hardships, yes stuff adds up) or false (e.g. the assumptions of gender/race essentialism etc baked into this). Naturally, SJW kick and scream when the scalpel is set to their tumor — they are determined to be accepted as hard science, try to pass as the “default” left, as postmodernists of old did already and resist documentation and debunking of their shenanigans with predominantly shady and dirty tactics. To sum up, the problem isn't feminism, but postmodernist authoritarians. ~ Aneris 06:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If SJWs are the problem, then execute them all and be done with it. At least then you will stop whinging about them. --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is it that every time someone criticizes "SJW"s, someone comes out of the woodwork and calls it "whining"? People like you will rant on and on about their pet subject and complain constantly about the people they don't like, but if they see someone criticizing something that doesn't particularly bother them, they call it "whining". This statement holds no weight, however, because it could just as easily be said that RationalWiki should stop "whining" about NaturalNews, Alex Jones, Conspiracy Theories, or pretty much every illogical thing documented here. Either you agree with these SJWs (in which case defend their arguments) or you don't (in which case, why are you criticizing people who also disagree with them??).TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the interpretation, according to my crank translator guide, is that:
  1. "whining" is discussion without converting.
  2. "Angry" means any sort of disagreement with the horrible thing called facts.
  3. "helping people see your point of view" is the execution of everyone who holds a contrary opinion, possibly with the assault of anyone who thinks this is extremely out of line and violates freedom of speech.
-EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well then like I said, RationalWiki is "whining" about pretty much everything they put in the clogosphere, because they definitely aren't changing anyone's point of view by posting an article about a supposed conspiracy to kill all white people. I think what largely defines "whining" on this wiki at least is "complaining about things I don't complain about".TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

For me, using the term "SJW" other than ironically is a huge hurdle. I start tuning out the minute someone employs it. It is properly characterized as a snarl word. That the depraved, maybe even sociopathic GGers popularized it, makes the epithet unacceptable to me. The feminist women they hounded, threatened and harassed did not deserve any of that. Full stop. I probably disagree quite a bit with their views, but that doesn't make me partial to the GGers, and certainly I abhor that segment of their movement that is vicious.---Mona- (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It was in use quite well before GamerGate. The fact of the matter is that it's the most convenient way to describe a certain mindset. To avoid using it you'd have to bend over backwards linguistically ("People who take social justice too far", a.k.a. PWTSJTF) or be too general ("far-left"). It isn't hateful in and of itself, it's just been used by bad people. For example, white supremacists often use the term "degenerate", but would you really ignore the points someone is making if they happen to use the same word? The phrase "social justice warrior" is, in and of itself, no more insulting that "crank" or "right-wing nut job". If you think that the word is tainted by some bad people who used it, fair enough, but judging someone's argument by their word choice when describing a problem that you yourself think exists (which is different from hateful word choice used to describe a non-issue, like using racial slurs to convey the dangers of letting blacks vote) is a very superficial way to argue.
On another note, if you have another, convenient phrase to describe this mindset, I would honestly find it very useful.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha! No. Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


There is reference to 'alphas, women, betas, gammas, omegas etc' - so (a) what about the deltas to psis (and not forgetting the obsolete letters), (b) why assume 'all women are one group' and (c) perhaps what is being observed is merely a 'move to the centre/middle ground.' (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is pretty obvious women aren't all one group, which is part of why it is a silly theory, even if there are some elements of truth in it. Just as there is a social hierarchy among men, determined by a number of factors (age, body type, wealth, education, etc), there is similarly a social hierarchy among women, determined by similar factors (age, body type, wealth, education, etc.) A forty year old unemployed obese high school dropout single mother has a lot less social capital than a twenty-one year old college student part time model with rich parents, and so obviously the second woman has a lot broader dating options than the first woman does. The other point is that "social hierarchy" is a multidimensional thing. Consider two thirty year old men, A and B. A is overweight, introverted/non-aggressive and has very nerdish interests, has a PhD, works for Google, earns over $200K a year. B is muscly, he has an aggressive/macho personality, he dropped out of high school, he works as a labourer and earns less than $50K a year. Who outranks who in the social hierarchy? Who is the "alpha" and who is the "beta"? Who is the better "catch"? Well, it depends on what one is looking for. Some women would likely prefer A to B, and others B to A. (((Zack Martin))) 04:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
How many persons would say (for a variety of different reasons) - neither of the chaps - and there may be other factors which make the older woman more attractive than the younger.
And why is the definition of alpha 'someone who can mistreat women' - rather than 'someone who helps people according to their needs, and makes use of (and acknowledges) their skills and abilities', and who is responsible, competent, knowledgeable, 'useful' and appropriately entertaining: which is what many of us would consider plus factors. No doubt if the diverse range of people who are RW users were asked to list what defines 'an alpha' and 'an omega' there would be some common features (and certain categories - the academic/townie/practical/sporty/other groups would tend to emphasise different aspects, on grounds others would consider reasonable to some extent). (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts on the name of this site

Rationality doesn't inherently require either endorsement or rejection of feminism, and anyone who thinks it does displays a rather poor understanding of what rationality actually is. Rationality and feminism are essentially orthogonal and unrelated topics. So, I think objecting to the site's name on the basis of its endorsement of feminism is misguided. That said, in my experience, any person or group who chooses to label themselves as "rational" probably isn't very rational at all. It is a bit like all those dictatorships called "Democratic Republic of X" – from the very fact that it feels the need to call itself "Democratic" you know that it isn't. Of course, you've heard this from me before, I've been saying it for years. And may all you raging alcoholics go ahead and drink–I now raise a glass of sparkling mineral water to the health of your liver! (((Zack Martin))) 06:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Most sites with "truth" or "rational" in their name are full of lies, I believe RationalWiki is an exception personally. Christopher (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I endorse the rule but question the proposed exception. Much of this site is simply poorly thought-out rants, talking points, and dumb jokes. May I compare this site to LessWrong: LessWrong is better, in that it at least doesn't go so far as to put the word "rational" in its name, but it still falls guilty to this elitist mindset of "we are more rational than the great unwashed masses are". I think LessWrong holds to a very narrow conception of rationality, and they assume that conception is correct without sufficient questioning–I think they haven't thought deeply enough about the philosophical question of what "rationality" actually is, they've just jumped on the bandwagon of one particularly questionable understanding of what (epistemic) rationality is ("rationality=Bayesianism!"). That said, I think LessWrong does a better job at practising the art of rationality than this site does, because they at least try to address the topic in a serious and rigorous way, something at which this site is a woeful failure. The folks at LessWrong have thought about the question "what is rationality?", and they've arrived at what they think is the correct answer (Bayesianism); even though I question if that is really the right answer, I respect them for making a serious attempt – I don't think this site, collectively speaking, has made any serious attempt to try to address the question of what "rationality" actually is–you'd think if you were going to make that your label you could be bothered. (And I am surprised no one has yet joined my toast.) (((Zack Martin))) 08:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
"Dumb jokes" in our articles don't stop us from being rational. Christopher (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
An obsession with the questionable application of logical fallacies is a shibboleth of this site. I believe that encouraging stupid jokes and encouraging serious rational deliberation are incompatible cultural forces, and a culture which encourages one will inevitably tend to do poorly at the other. I may or may not be right in this belief (although I am certainly not the only person who holds it)–but that belief sure isn't a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are arguments, but "a culture which encourages dumb jokes will tend to do poorly at serious rational deliberation" is a proposition, a claim, not an argument, so it is a category mistake, and arguably rather fallacious, to accuse it of being a fallacy. And, if I use it as a premise in an inductive argument that this site fails to live up to its name, such an argument cannot be fairly accused of being a fallacy, since the premise (if true) actually does significantly increase the likelihood of the truth of the conclusion. Around here, "logical fallacies" are magic words, thought-terminating cliches, in which any argument is lazily responded to with "you are committing the X fallacy", without any justification as to why "the X fallacy" is actually a real thing (as opposed to just something someone made up)–or even if it is a real thing, without any detailed justification of the claim that the argument being responded to is actually an instance of it (many of these alleged fallacies are so imprecisely defined it would be quite difficult to provide such a detailed justification anyway). (((Zack Martin))) 08:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that "dumb jokes" and rationality are mutually exclusive, do you have any reasoning for why you think this is the case? Christopher (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I should be more precise in my claims. Of course, the occasional dumb joke doesn't do any harm. And, the problem is more with jokes in general rather than dumb jokes specifically (the joke being dumb only serves to compound the crime). Humour tends to reinforce people's pre-existing beliefs. People find jokes funny when those jokes reinforce their pre-existing attitudes, and the experience of humour in turn reinforces those attitudes further. In other words, humour tends to promote lazy groupthink over critical thought. Most of the time, humour makes you feel good about what you already believe (and superior to those who believe differently) rather than challenging you to doubt and question your own beliefs. (And, that is especially true of humour on this site–not all humour is based on feelings of superiority of the ingroup over the outgroup, but I think that accurately describes an awful lot of the humour on this site–most of the humour here is about deprecating others as opposed to self-deprecation.) Humour which presumes different beliefs from your own–try showing some liberal political humour to conservatives, or conservative political humour to liberals–tends not to be experienced as funny, but either as stupid or even offensive. So, as an occasional thing, in small doses, humour does no great harm. But, when jokes become a major preoccupation for a community–especially jokes at the expense of those who disagree with the community's beliefs–it tends to be bad for its overall rationality. (((Zack Martin))) 10:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that too much snark is a bad thing. We do actually debunk claims as well as just mock them though (unlike satirical news which is what the article you linked to concerns). Christopher (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything in particular you think this site does a good job of "debunking"? (((Zack Martin))) 10:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

And sometimes jokes, whether or not 'dumb', silly or otherwise seemingly trivial do provoke people to think or diffuse tension/resolve disagreements etc. (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes maybe yes. But, looking at the particular sort of jokes on this site, how often do they actually do that? (((Zack Martin))) 11:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The wiki has been given this name, and has been around long enough to answer to it (as with Columbo's dog called 'Dog'). (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

RationalWiki viewership

A lot of people have prophesied the doom of RW. I think they're partially right and partially wrong. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Losing users

First, the partially wrong. No, RW's not hemorrhaging editors or edits:

RW Stats 15-Dec.png

This seems to be the most common complaint; it's also wrong. It could be growing faster, but editor-wise RW 2015 is a lot better than RW 2013 or RW 2014. If anyone has any ideas on how to better grow the editorbase, do tell. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Losing readers

Second, the partially right. RW is hemorrhaging viewers.


RW Rank 16-Jan.PNG


RW Traffic 16-Jan.png

According to the Rank2Traffic graph, RW's max was 2.2 million monthly viewers in October 2014; it's now 1.4 million, 36.3% less. This is reflected in RW's increasing Alexa rank.

What, if anything, can RW do to get more readers? What did it do that caused a reduction in readers? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Those estimated numbers are pretty much nonsense. Literally all sites of this sort are completely spurious bullshit. Alexa is the best (or least worst) and even that's (famously) spurious bullshit.
The pageview logs from the squids, which we have back to late 2012 on squid1 and mid-2013 on squid2, would tell the truth. Of course this involves a bit of chewing on them. With the weird Squid error artifacts I noted in the Saloon Bar, I may have to script something to process from the NCSA logs (which have IP and user-agent data so are private information I can't just put up). But the pageview logs (which are OK to make public) should be fine. I won't put those up right now (they're a third of a gig each compressed), but here's a simple count of hits for all months from the two squids. These numbers include MediaWiki calling itself, page fragments, etc, but the software is substantially identical over these numbers:
month squid1 squid2 total
11/12 5027484 5027484
12/12 15785884 15785884
01/13 18140551 18140551
02/13 17999090 17999090
03/13 20268004 20268004
04/13 7283349 7283349
05/13 1684963 1684963
06/13 18583027 16861617 35444644
07/13 17576295 18409692 35985987
08/13 19377105 18378993 37756098
09/13 20214227 19081687 39295914
10/13 23382660 22042778 45425438
11/13 22286646 21762997 44049643
12/13 23514237 23523272 47037509
01/14 22958268 22692283 45650551
02/14 22464156 22462984 44927140
03/14 23059092 24779760 47838852
04/14 23804404 25157735 48962139
05/14 24317421 23910134 48227555
06/14 24673399 24688722 49362121
07/14 26567723 27270514 53838237
08/14 26146242 26430402 52576644
09/14 26880227 27183816 54064043
10/14 29445564 28997245 58442809
11/14 28152330 28112848 56265178
12/14 27529894 27483612 55013506
01/15 30201174 30174997 60376171
02/15 26368335 27364322 53732657
03/15 28765537 28510227 57275764
04/15 29601977 30419035 60021012
05/15 28424669 28891102 57315771
06/15 26509675 25802311 52311986
07/15 25629529 26776716 52406245
08/15 27315983 28044613 55360596
09/15 27436294 27863103 55299397
10/15 29467675 31110524 60578199
11/15 29412679 30362141 59774820
12/15 27280365 28145833 55426198
tl;dr steadily increasing year-on-year - David Gerard (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

This website has a major bias

I have used this website for a few years and one thing that has always bothered me is the level of sarcasm in the articles. — Unsigned, by: Liberonscien / talk / contribs

It's a feature, not a bug. ;) (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Year, right! ;-) Bongolian (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

What should be RW's stance on/approach to moral issues?


Note: Not all these options are necessarily mutually exclusive. Feel free to make multiple votes/comments if you wish to show support for two or more non-mutually exclusive options.
Another note: This is by no means an officially binding vote. Rather, it's more of an informal poll to get a better idea of the general sentiment among RW users. You can untwist your panties now.

We should criticize particular kinds X and Y of moral codes and be neutral towards everything else

We should poop on all the bullshit based on imagined/nonfactual narratives and not bother with the other stuff

  1. because poop is involved αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Critical rationalismWikipedia's W.svg

i.e. (in this case) intellectually criticizing moral theories without firmly taking a stance in support of any specific moral perspective

We should take a stance in support of one (or more) specific moral view(s)

Meta-ethical viewsWikipedia's W.svg

Moral realismWikipedia's W.svg

  1. Am I supposed to write here? How else do I "vote"? Anyways, in Sense and Goodness Without God and The End Of Christianity (as well as in his blog, in podcasts, on youtube, etc.) Richard Carrier does a good job of showing that Ethical Naturalism, a form of Moral Realism, is true. He definitely convinced me. Brianpansky (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Am I supposed to write here?" Yep, you 'voted' correctly. ;) (talk) 00:45, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
  2. Sounds good. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ethical subjectivismWikipedia's W.svg/Moral relativismWikipedia's W.svg

Moral universalismWikipedia's W.svg

Value monismWikipedia's W.svg
Value pluralismWikipedia's W.svg
  1. This would be where I come in, I think. Human moralities are complex webs of different impulses, and there is no algorithm that weighs them all correctly. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Moral skepticismWikipedia's W.svg

Moral nihilismWikipedia's W.svg

Normative ethical viewsWikipedia's W.svg

Virtue ethicsWikipedia's W.svg

DeontologyWikipedia's W.svg

ConsequentialismWikipedia's W.svg

HedonismWikipedia's W.svg
  1. Really? Nobody's even given the time of day to Hedonism? Fine! I'll start my own wiki! With blackjack, and hookers! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Make me another. If the goal isn't pleasure, what's the point? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Negative utilitarianismWikipedia's W.svg
Preference utilitarianismWikipedia's W.svg
  1. I vote for this. Also see Richard Carrier's unification of Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, and basically everything, because they all come back to desire consequentialism. Brianpansky (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
State consequentialism/MohismWikipedia's W.svg

Not sure where to put this but

We should be totally Conservative, because why the fuck not?

  1. This is a stupid idea, but obviously renaming ourselves Trumpopedia and rearranging every article to prove Donald Dump right is a great idea.Keter (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Wait, since when is Trump a conservative? (talk) 03:48, 19 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Not sure

This thing is complicated as hell. I'm being presented with a massive list of options. Is this a German election? BurgerDominar (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Only if you want it to be. ;) (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG How dare you even ask my opinion on this??!?

( This is apparently a very popular opinion, judging by people's comments. >.> (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC) )

General discussion

This sounds like a thing we should ideally get to some sort of agreement/consensus on. Feel free to add more options where you think they belong, btw. (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need another orthodoxy that isn't set forth in the mission statement here? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
No. The very idea is preposterous. We have many varieties here and always should.---Mona- (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure where you get the idea this vote is proposing to get rid of varieties of anything. I'm just nudging the proletariat to see how people feel about this/see if there might be a consensus or other hiding in the dark. (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the proletariat loves choosing between various pieces of philosophical jargon. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 03:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That assumes the proletariat is exclusively focused on the "We should take a stance in support of one (or more) specific moral view(s)" section, though. And it's not so hard to figure out what most of those terms mean. And there's also the option to add a new section to the list if none of the 'philosophical jargon' really works for you. (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily, though it would preemptively solve a good deal of disputes if there was some general agreement on this (not saying that this vote would actually lead to such). The mission statement sort of hints at a version of the first option and possibly implies a particular meta-ethical view. Might be nice to get some clarity on that part. But feel free to add a "We don't need an official stance on this; let things resolve themselves on a case-by-case basis" section in the vote if that's how you feel. (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and will not stop opinions for a second - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop opinions?! Where are people getting these ridiculous impressions from? >.> (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I am profoundly annoyed by FCP's apparent empire-building and love of pointless bureaucratic fuckery. RW is not the place for an endless parade of petty votes about everything under the sun and their determination to make everything on the site as joyless and anodyne as possible. Stop this idiocy. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if any of that is relevant to this forum...? (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

So, let's discuss doxxing

In an era where things like Gamergate seem to dominate the Wiki (whether you like it or not), and an era where doxxing is used as an intimidation tactic against people on the internet, I thought it might be a good time for the website to discuss doxxing. Specifically, we as a website community should come up with 1) a definition of doxxing we apply to edits 2) different levels of severity for doxxing infractions (if any) and 3) from those, a uniform policy on how doxxing is to be handled. This isn't just a "block the doxxer" sort of thing, but we're talking things like, for example, if User posts an editor's real name. do we rev. delete it and to what level? What sort of punishment should be leveled against User? Does that same standard apply to phone numbers and addresses, or should a separate standard apply, with more serious consequences? Should doxxing information be added to abuse filters to prevent it from being re-posted? Do we need a Coop case for leaked information, or will moderator/sysop action suffice? So, let's start this discussion. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I expect to get shit on by Ryulong et al for this, but if the person in question has a pseudonym and/or real name, in the public domain due to a level of celebrity (i.e. - covered in the news), and that information is pertinent to discussing their history (i.e. - before their transition, Catilyn Jenner was named Bruce Jenner when they were a winner of the Olympics), then I would consider it acceptable. If it's something completely unconfirmed or not in any way tied to their public persona and thus not a matter of public interest or discussion, then it should remain verboten. As for any editor here, not allowed at all unless they choose to release that information or unless they fall under the first condition, where their psuedonym/real name has been covered in the news or they edit here under their real name by default (i.e. - David Gerard). Anything done out of obvious spite/bad faith, even if under acceptable guidelines otherwise, that should still not be allowed. Arcane (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult to make sweeping generalisations because so often it's an argument between two sides who swear blind that any details they drop isn't doxing, but any details the other side drop is. A frequent defense I see around the internet is "he doxed himself" if the information was already publicly available through google but in 99.9% of the cases that's how you go about doxing people. You just google them and post what you find. In simple terms I'd define doxing as 'collating and distributing any personal information without the consent of the target', with some obvious exceptions such as firms and businesses that clearly want their contact information disseminated. I suppose there's also excuses to make for known frauds, scammers and trolls using false identities, but that seems a complicated issue that bears more thinking about. As for severity of dox, some people make the mistake of posting information which they falsely assumed was public knowledge, without malicious intent. It happens, and a case-by-case judgement might be needed. I'd say as a general rule we could split it into three tiers of severity ; the first being harmless internet footprint stuff, other places the person posts at etc., with the caveat that nothing posted is clearly and obviously meant as an attempt to humiliate and embarrass them (ie. porn or fetish sites.) Second tier would be personal information, realworld location, name, etc. and internet footprints that make a clear and obvious attempt to humiliate or incriminate. Third tier would be contact information, phone numbers, street addresses, etc. SS numbers and bank details and etc. would go past the level of 'doxing' and into fullblown identity theft afaik. I'm new here and haven't lurked that long so I don't feel qualified to comment on how seriously you'd wanna take these offences, except to say it should be uniform. Seriously (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
When doxing happens the last thing to do is make a big deal about it because that only draws attention and leads to other independent doxing incidents and it lets everyone know that the information was correct. 99.9% of the time doxing happens the victim says that it was "incorrect." It's for that reason I don't buy the whole spiel about innocent people being frequently targeted. Doxing is still abhorrent and everyone it happens to is a victim regardless of whether the information is "correct." We'd have to have a rule that anything that could be unintended personal information must be treated as dox. Any information that isn't very blatantly made public on the user's own page should be treated as dox because otherwise you fall into the trap that "they made it public." You'd be surprised how many people think they can use the same handle on Twitter and not have it picked out from their other accounts. Aleksandra96 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


The gentlemen at a rather liberal website want to discuss posting of information in regards to real names of internet users. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, sone of us may also be women. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm kind of avoiding this discussion because right now is not the time to have it with all the bad faith gator accounts running amok. Maybe it's just a thing that should be discussed between mods. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Or any of willing to use email, in email chains. I'm in touch with several editors on this matter. Everything we say here is serving as fodder for their RW soap opera and announcements of addresses, plans to harass David Gerard's wife, to dox Queex and on and on. So, we should back channel this.---Mona- (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
For the record, it is an ongoing e-mail discussion, I just had to seize the occasion to respond to smartassry with more smartassry. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been in touch with a couple mods over this as well. I think this topic is just pouring more oil on the garbage fire. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

This site is ridiculous.

Have read few articles about Copyright, Bitcoin and David Icke. You guys know shit. And you're probably funded by NWO.— Unsigned, by: satisfied customer / talk / contribs

You're right, we are! Don't inform the IRS; we have to report it as income if you do. /s WalkerWalkerWalker 22:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, and the NWO might have your IP address now. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course, the IRS controls the NWO, so I know you're joking. (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
When do I get some of this NWO money? I got accused of being a paid NWO shill on YouTube earlier today. Where's my bag of shill gold? --Maxus (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Silver, goy. The NWO does not use this gold standard of yours. (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We know more shit than you even thought. Check out the didit generator. Bongolian (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
*Satisfied Customer staring down a bunch of NWO stooges* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
How come nobody told me the NWO was paying?! I would have gotten my free silver if it wasn't for all of ya not telling me... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 04:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
First choo get da Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, deen you get da NSA ran Wiki, deen you get da monies... #NWO Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Italian language

Hello everybody, My name is Andy, and I am a 32 years old Japanese language professor, based in Milan, Italy. I'd like to begin translating some of your articles into my mothertongue, Italian, since lately in Italy conspiracy theories and woo medicine seem to be the hype, along with a renewed racist mind among the less educated masses (seems to be the same all around the world, imo, though). How can I create a new language section, like you did for Russian? Am I free to do it? Or do I need a special account in order to do it? Thank you in advance for your answers!— Unsigned, by: Dbrn / talk / contribs

This page in the help section deals with this. You're welcome to translate pages into any language even if there is no set 'project' for it (like there is for Russian). And, funnily enough, I was planning to do something like this too! (Being only at Year 12-level Italian, though, having an actual professor would be much more suitable...) Acquiesce (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Name for a (neutral) political vlog/ show (think ten minutes of ridiculing the stupidest shit in the clogosphere every week)

Hello netizens of rationalwiki. i apologize for posting something which is somewhat irrelevant, but i require a solution for this conundrum. i am attempting to name a weekly political vlog/show, and i have narrowed it down to these choices, which i shall promptly shout across the bar in order to see if any of them stick: the weekly scrum, the red phone, age of majority with..., uproot the astroturf with... (astroturf being a term for a fake grassroots movement), to big to prevail (play on to big to fail), shirt-sleeve politics with..., rose garden rubbish with..., the weekly hatchet job, media melee with..., within the loop, and sphere of influence with..., your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Vote and comment here!!! — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I like "uproot the astroturf" because it's the one that looks actually novel - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Comment of the Month

I have an idea. This idea is like the phone company of that name, except better. You know how RW has some of the best talk page and forum comments on the web, us being the Internet's premier goat, so there's only one thing to do:

Make an award!

And here comes the Comment of the Month (CotM), which takes the best talk page or forum comment of the past month - and gives it an award! Yeah!

I'll set up the award later, but now I will have lunch. Bye, Larry/Jack! - (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it going to be the most crowd-pleasing comment, the best structured logically, or one that maybe changed people's minds on an issue?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I can tell you this would be dead within half a year. --03:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd be all for a "RationalWiki Commenters Say The Darndest Things", but not this. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it will be the funniest comment. Larry/Jack! - (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

October's comment of the month

Add a new level 3 heading for a comment you want to nominate.

[view] [edit]

New here, how to submit a news article to WIGO?

So this is a depressingly bizarre thing that happened: U.S. Gun Maker Creates 'Crusader' Rifle That ISIS 'Can't Touch' --LibraryLass (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured it was just the sort of thing that belonged in What Is Going On, but since I don't have edit permissions for it... what's the process for submitting it to someone that does? — Unsigned, by: LibraryLass / talk / contribs

You can now edit it. Scream!! (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like I can do blogs, clogs, and saloon, but not World. (It appears to be locked?) --LibraryLass (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was locked because of excessive twattery. I'll put it in for you if you like. BicyclewheelModerator 17:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
That would be great, thanks. --LibraryLass (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Unpleasant experience of rational wiki

I'm not sure if I can be bothered with RW any more after this. I had no intention of engaging with @Paravant who was being a dick and pretending Rational Wiki doesn't have a lower standard of notability and looser processes compared to Wikipedia. Such a misguided position so far detached from the facts I felt it didn't warrant a real response. What happened next only goes to back up this position.

After not paying my respects to the establishment, he decided to delete all my uploaded images, first claiming ignorance of their context which was fully established and cited within the relevant articles, then when I reuploaded them with improved context, he took exception to the lack of licensing information, deleting them again immediately. Uploading once again with full description, images, citations and licensing rationale he informed an administrator and had me blocked from the site for a few hours and of course deleted the images again.

I believe he was fully aware of the rationale in every case and was purely being vindictive. As you can see, the threat of a higher rights user who is unable to accept the reality of site processes and is willing to lie and abuse this power - makes RW an unwelcoming place for me to contribute. Before I call it quits, I would ask if this kind of behavior is typical of RW users, or whether it is worth me sticking things out despite this? Deku-shrub (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but maybe riling up an RW moderator wasn't the best of ideas? (talk) 19:54, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Here's what you missed: having a different standard is not equal to having a low standard. We have standards that are a little subjective, and quite stringent in their way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"Waaaaah, I didn't get to do what I want so I'm taking my ball and going home." Seriously, fair use of images is not different between Wiki and RW. They are covered by the same use standard to not get sued. The rules are up, and case standards are in history with LogicMaster vs. Reality, and you can whine about it if you like. If you feel like this is unfair the Coop is there for these issues. Making a forum whine and thread to LANCB is about as useless as it comes if you want anything actually done. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think how Deku-shrub has been treated is pretty shitty, as are the unpleasant responses in this thread. Don't be in such a hurry to drive away new editors.

To answer Deku-shrub's questions: yes, unfortunately this kind of shitty attitude is quite common at RW; and yes, I think you should stick around in spite of it. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

While copyright concerns are a legitimate reason to delete something, I don't know enough about this situation to form an opinion as to whether it was justified. I will say, as a newcomer myself, a number of people here are insufferable. People who should not have moderator powers, have them (and no, I don't mean Paravant, altho he's prickly). (I've had such powers, starting back in ye olde days of CompuServe, and have quit when I determined that other sysops were behaving unfairly.) A willingness to work, and to do so intelligently with copious documentation, is unwelcome if a viewpoint is sufficiently heterodox here. In my initial excitement I had tweeted that anyone with time on their hands should consider helping out here with the many under-sourced articles. I would not make that recommendation again. The asshole quotient is too high and too many don't know good faith exchanges from a pile of shit. So -- especially in light of the tone of some of the comments in this very thread -- I'm inclined to sympathize with Deku-shrub in general, but am agnostic on whether he posed a serious copyright risk ---Mona- (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There are 7 mods....a lot are inactive. Maybe you can explain what you mean by the mod statements? Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
She probably doesn't know the difference between sysop and mod on a wiki and is whining about me, among others.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The mods are elected users who try to make sure things don't get too out of hand with as little action as possible to do so (or so they believe). A SYSOP is a trusted editor that has access to special pages and more tools to edit. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I know that!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem I had with Mona is the she would make a biased or minor edit, it'd get reverted, and rather than go to the talk page and discuss her edit BEFORE putting it back in, she'd re-enter her edit and insist that she was right and ignore other people when they told her why her edit was wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That is a valid problem and a great strategy to avoid edit wars. Also, the elected mod Paravant is pretty good, I am skeptical of their accused prickliness. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think you should stick around. While I won't comment on any specifics or judge on right or wrong here (not that I even could), I'm convinced your intention is to make meaningful additions to RW. And under the assumption that both parties feel that they've clearly acted correctly, then I imagine that the both of you fully support that "this" is brought into the eye of the larger community. And in most of these infected anus-goiters of conflict, there's generally atleast one more sysop lurking than posting. Meaning: we all don't just dive in and take sides, for better or worse. So take your time with most conflicts and maybe you manage to rally (or alienate) one or more undecided contributors. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd love for you to stay, I think we need to cover these sorts of topics and overall you are doing good. But if your attitude to how Rw works is "it's the less quality controlled wikipedia" and when told otherwise start to say nonsense, then you are going to find some of us hostile to you.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they might want to read the Mission Statement? Also, elected Paravant doesn't seem to be one to generally cause trouble. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I've done my fair share of drama in my 4 years, though I'd like to believe part of switching to Paravant was getting beyond that and being more focused. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to suffer reverts from certain users. I will virtually always undo their reverts of me. They are unreasonable and do not discuss in good faith. On the other hand, when I make significant changes not involving those users I make note of them on the talk page. If people do not engage me there I will undo reverts. On multiple talk pages I've requested feedback and gotten little to none -- just reverts. I won't put up with that and will continue to undo. That's how I roll and if it is unacceptable, well, I don't know what else I can say. And Arisboch is quite correct. He is one the insufferables I have in mind. If your primary experience of him is outside of issues touching on Israel you may not feel that way, but that is my primary experience of him and he's a grade-A jerk -- who is as rational, reasonable and civil as Donald Trump.---Mona- (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Cry me a Nile and an Euphrates.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"I'm not going to suffer reverts from certain users." I question your "philosophy". Heres the talk page included for now (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"Paravant doesn't seem to be one to generally cause trouble" He and I have made peace and I don't wish to relitigate that contretemps. I will only say that I experienced him as peevish, dismissive and impatient when someone (me) who knows a great deal about extremely contentious topics rattles cages and thereby generates a flurry of edits, reversion and arguments on talk pages. But as I say, we've worked that out.---Mona- (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"I question your "philosophy"." It's not a philosophy, its a policy. Once I've determined someone is a pseudo-inquirer or a related type of bad faith interlocutor, I do not generally engage them. But you are free to question what you will.---Mona- (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This is what I am talking about (I assume that Avenger and I are the others, even though I find Avenger fairly annoying). You will undo the reverts before discussing with anyone. If I were to enter into the Steven Hawking entry about how he is running an underground puppy fighting tournament without providing sufficient citation, and then Arisboch reverts me, and I undo the revert before going to the talk page and discussing with others, I am the one causing an edit war, not Arisboch. Please, use the talk pages before undoing a revert (and no, stating a reason and undoing a revert before anyone can discuss does not mean "we agree with you"). CorruptUser (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh and if you are adding responses to your own comment
don't do this
Keep it on the same indent.CorruptUser (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not the place for this stuff guys--22:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Paravant / talk / contribs

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Leaving Mona versus RationalWiki aside and back to the post by Deku-shrub. I certainly think you should come back and hope that you will. It can seem at times that this place is populated by a clique of insufferable clots, and unpleasant behaviour between editors is by no means uncommon. There is though a ton of great content that you will not find elsewhere and the mission of the wiki remains important. That alone makes it worthwhile for me and I hope for others. There are plenty of other interwebs places where folks are actually nice to each other - pop over to one of those for some feel good therapy :)--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

CAIR entry, other changes needed to be made

I'm new here, and not entirely sure how things work either software-wise or procedurally. Last nite I spent many hours making critical changes to the "CAIR" entry at the top of the "to do" list. My edits show at the entry itself but not at the blurb on the to do page. I see there is some sort of voting going on and I don't know how to do that.

CAIR is an organization I know a great deal about, and the contributor trying to impugn it with Hamas links is doing so with recourse to a wingnut report. Islamophobia is a dealbreaker for me. I have much time, and plenty of energy to tweak and write entries. (I'm politically networked, well-read and current on many important issues of the day, and as Glenn Greenwald's friend and former law partner I have access to various people and entities some do not.) But if RW entries violate some of my core values that's a problem.

Not a threat or demand, just saying I'm unsure of the lay of the land here, and if we don't fit I can move on. ---Mona- (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If you see irrational content, change it. Just because somebody is a registered editor it does not make their opinion valid. You have the ability to correct false information. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
RW is generally critical of religions, but also supports the right to freedom of thought/belief and is very much opposed to any discrimination or stereotyping of ethnicities, including ethno-religious groups. So if you see something written with an Islamophobic tone, feel free to correct it. (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict w/ below) I'd echo what he said; I'd also add that approaching these kinds of disagreements with (a) reputable/credible sources that back your points and (b) explanations of why any less-than-credible sources of information are so is always helpful. As for this specific case, the already exists an article on CAIR here; I would direct your efforts there. Discussion of any disputes/inaccuracies/such should take place on its talkpage, Talk:CAIR. As for the to-do list in general, removing entries outright is frowned upon unless they're substantially into negative numbers on the voting, but beyond that there isn't really hard and fast etiquette on adding to/correcting suggestions that I know of, though again sources are always nice. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm also largely critical of religion in the sense that I do not accept as literally true supernatural claims and do not regard faith as a proper way to know about the natural world. But I also accept the cultural and sociological, as well as political, aspects of religion, all of which can all be good, bad or neutral. Anyway, what is this "vote" thing on the new article stubs? The stub has different text than the actual CAIR entry I edited last nite; my edits are not reflected at the "to do" stub. Will my edits remain at the entry unless someone changes them at the entry itself rather than the stub? Sorry to be such a helpless infant about these issues.-Mona- (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The to-do list entry will remain as it is, though it will in due time be removed from the recently created list, since we keep some finite number of those. It's written by an editor when making the suggestion to serve as a brief summary of why he/she thinks we should have an article on whatever (here CAIR, of course). I'd focus on making the article accurate instead of messing with a suggestion that cited incorrect reasons, since ultimately the suggestion/to-do list entry is there simply to suggest an article be created. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I added a little bit to the list entry to show the Hamas-connection isn't undisputed fact. Either way, what's important is that the article contains the right information. (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh! If you're wondering why you can't add a vote to the little "to make a CAIR article or not to make a CAIR article" poll, it's because we close the polls once an article is made, since their point was primarily to gauge interest in an article. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the patience and info. It seems I don't have to pay any particular attention to the "to do" list text if there already is an entry on the topic I want to edit. That is good to know. I do have a topic for the to do list, but can't figure out how to get it posted there. (I am a whiny problem child.)---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
So when you go to the todo list, there isn't an edit link up top. That's meant to encourage people to edit individual sections rather than the page as a whole, and cuts down on the risk of someone (I probably would, given my affinity for oops! moments) accidentally borking the formatting. What you want to do is scroll down to the heading Recent suggestions and click the little [edit] link off to its right. (alternately, this link will take you straight to the edit screen) Add your suggestion at the top of that section with this formatting:

<vote poll=todo1389>[[Title of the article-to-be]]: brief summary of the subject/why it should be a RatWik article, preferably with links to sources of info on it</vote>

And voila! you're good. If it won't let you (says some about the page being protected and you not being allowed to edit it), drop the info to fill it out here and I'll do it for you. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yea, the first part of it is actually, direct quotes: "New Articles" "These former suggestions have been created recently. There may be plenty of work left to do." They were already created so no further voting. You were not able to do it before because the protection on the page was auto- which I have granted you only recently. You will now be able to edit it. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're autoconfirmed you should be able to edit the list through this link. (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Kosterortiizbrock, the page protection is edit=autoconfirmed,move=autoconfirmed. Autoconfirmed is a group automatically assigned to user accounts which are at least one day old and have at least ten edits. It nixes the captcha and of course allows editing of pages protected at that level. Autopatrolled is the user rights group that people assign manually to user accounts, which gets rid of the little red exclamation marks sysops see on Special:RecentChanges and allows uploading images and maybe some other goodness. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I know this information, I genuinely do. I'm quite slow today- BONS are doing better and more edits than me. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 :P (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Can we make this guy the official site mascot?

I recently watched the documentary, "An Honest Liar," which is about James Randi.

Here's a little excerpt from the wikipediea article:

Randi has gone on to write many articles criticizing beliefs and claims regarding the paranormal. He has also demonstrated flaws in studies suggesting the existence of paranormal phenomena; in his Project Alpha hoax, Randi successfully planted two fake psychics in a privately funded psychic research experiment. The hoax became a scandal and demonstrated the shortcomings of many paranormal research projects at the university level.

He's now one of my personal heros and I think he sounds like the perfect mascot for RationalWiki. Thoughts? InfinitelySingular (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


The one and only mascot of the RW is and will be forever THE GOAT! Recant, Jerboaists! Heiðrún's gonna kick your ass!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no goat but Heiðrún, and Snorri is her prophet. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Arisboch. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
James Randi was a great man but he was just that- a man. He came nowhere near the seemingly infinite power of Goats and their Goatspeed. #BlackLivesMatter (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
What if we get a picture of him with a goat? InfinitelySingular (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you're on to something. #WhiteHivesLadder (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

NSFW RW goatse.png Oh, Goat~ I recant~ Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am curious, who is the inventor of that truly inspirational piece of art? I think it gives deep insight on today's societal decadence and how honest hard-working American citizens need to drive their country forward. #WhitePeopleUseLadders (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I so wish I was not in the middle of a huge meeting at work right now. Must. Resist. Clicking. Link!!!!! InfinitelySingular (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a mascot

WalkerWalkerWalker 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not to say James Randi isn't awesome

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say he's an inspiration to most skeptics. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

James Randi goatsona. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Randi Schmandi. The Rare Breeds Farm in my town has a pigmy goat called Darwin. BicyclewheelModerator 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
James Randi kicks mega ass. That being said, he's already the founder and member of many sceptical organisations, the Randi foundation, his prize, CSICOP, and so forth. It'd be confusing to just make him our mascot, as he's so far mascoting a lot for various sceptic projects and organisations that he himself is actually closely tied with. Why don't we make his article of gold quality already? Damn. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Still Learnin' the ropes here...

So how do I put the little bar/sticker type dealios that other user pages have on them onto mine? (ex: Communist, Socialist, or -insert religion here-) I thank anybody who helps in advance for doing so! -ProbablyHomestuckTrash

Hey there my friend, try using Userboxes. TipuSultanInaVeryConvincingDisguise (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, How do I use the userboxes? Also, I appear to be having issues with adding to the "to-do list". - ProbablyHomestuckTrash

I may sound like a little bit of a dick but you should always sign your username simply so people know it's you easier, especially when the writing becomes more cluttered.

Ok, type Userboxes into search. Perhaps if there is a specific one you want I can try to help you? TotallynotTipuSultan (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Tls for the wiki

greetings. i have just created an account, after spending quite some time pouring over the site. i am generally very enjoying of the content hear, and found some spots where i thought i could contribute, so here i am

one thing that has bothered me, when signing up, is there is no https for this site. this means that when i sign in, my password is being sent in cleartext. not a very exciting prospect

i wanted to suggest that rationalwiki get a free ssl certificate from startssl. they do good work imo in a pretty terrible industry (certificate authorities)

if y'all desire any help with this, i have domain knowledge to offer about how to do this safely and effectively — Unsigned, by: Hhh / talk / contribs

This might actually be a good idea, regardless of which service we use. Doesn't Google factor SSL certification into their ranking? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeeup. It's on the big list of "things to get into place" - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]


We're still getting tons of reports on DAESH activities around the world. Should we consider creating a new WIGO page devoted to DAESH, or even other terrorist organizations? "What's Going on in the Bombosphere", perhaps.-- Forerunner (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

gen. terror sure Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure.--Arisboch (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
DAESH No, Terrorism, eh? It seems a little off to give them their own special little area at all . Plus how we define terrorism will come into play and it opens to many worms about what is and is not a terrorist organization/act. Plus The more general WIGO's we have and the less specialized topic WIGO's, the better tbh. We don't need a WIGO about creationism because Blogs and Clogs covers it already, and clogs (for their bullshit) and World (for their actions) does the same for most terrorist groups..--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No. I love our WIGOs but I think those we have cover it all. Any fragmenting would be just that and would dilute the idea. Scream!! (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I could see a WIGOBOMB as a funspace thing The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You have a strange conception of fun. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice idea on paper, but without enough editors willing to keep it going it'll fizzle out like WIGO Fourth Reich did years ago. BicyclewheelModerator 11:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I just don't see it working out because we already have two/three wigos that cover the topic - World, clogs and blogs (For the actions, the shit they say about themselves/others say about them and the rational things people say about them). Centralizing them in one place just makes a slow moving page that only gets edits and attention when something bad happens (or somebody says something stupid), and that strikes me as really unseemly. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
while I would love to have a one-stop-shop for links to use to shut down moronic Democrats/Obama lovers who argue that Obama "ended the war in Iraq," another WIGO doesn't really make sense.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You could make a section on his page... =P 20:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Possibly the most opinionated site I've been to

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. (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. (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)


  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. (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

RationalWiki Community Status

Got bored of the old thread. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Excel: (use the FuzzyCatPotato tab)
Alexa: (World: 18,500th May-2015, from 16,000 April-2015)
Compete: (370,000 unique visitors April-2015, from 500,000 March-2015, from 150,000 April-2014)
Quantcast: (200,000 unique visitors April-2015, from 175,000 March-2015)
FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Excel: (use the FuzzyCatPotato tab)
Alexa: (World: 20,000th Jun-2015, from 18,500 May-2015)
Compete: (340,000 unique visitors May-2015, from 370,000 April-2015)
Quantcast: (90,000 unique visitors May-2015, from 200,000 April-2015)
FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Excel: (use the FuzzyCatPotato tab)
FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Excel: (use the FuzzyCatPotato tab)
FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I is sorries. I bring pplZ back nao. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


Excel: (use the FuzzyCatPotato tab)
RW seems to be undergoing a long-term increase in edits/month, largely because of editors with over 300 monthly edits, similar to 2010-11. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I do wonder though... How much of the increase is in mainspace? WalkerWalkerWalker 04:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
How much is non-edit warring about Israel or gamergate or that idiotic My Little Pony article? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)