RationalWiki talk:RationalMedia Foundation
New management[edit]
First off, congrats for finally reaching the end-line for all this. I'd say more on this, but I'm on a phone at work so time is limited. So just mentally pad out my hurrah and (justified) back patting, yes? Anyhows, I have questions, which I am sure nobody is surprised about!
1. Can we have a few more details on the 'demise of RWF'? You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to notice stuff like they were using the same lawyer, negotiating as a (at least partial) group and were all about eugenics.
2. Detail the continued force of any agreements previously entered into by OldOrg on NewOrg. Most obviously related to the previous.
3. Detail the legal protections editors will have regarding both creation of mainspace content and discussions elsewhere (such as the Bar).
4. Detail the proposed future roles of the board vs mods. Speaking personally, feel the NewOrg was basically a 'coup for RWs own good' but want to know when it comes down to it - how much power is the mods going to enjoy? I get that it's a 'ball stops here' with the board but there's a world of difference between us mods being the batters while the board is the wicket-keeper vs the board doing the batting too and we're not much more than to hold the bat.
5. Legal retainers and legal insurance is not free, let alone any of the updates etc that RW needs. Has the board got plans/ideas of how to tackle this?
6. RW got hit partly because we were friendless, while a lack of new/updated content is due to a lack of new users. Does the board have ideas on this, perhaps including a proper social media outreach using something like Hootsuite or SocialChimp?
KarmaPolice (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for this - I think it's probably what many have been thinking. I'm glad you've laid out the issues here. [[User:@Pin@[[:User:|]]kerite|Pinkerite]] (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- A lot of this has already been addressed in RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation, and RationalWiki:Saloon bar#RationalWiki is now under new management, and RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation/Bylaws. Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I wasn't aware of the various other locations, and also, not all of the issues listed here have been covered elsewhere. The information could be better organized - that could be a project for the new Oregon era. In any case I still appreciate the efforts of KarmaPolice. Pinkerite (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- In fact, only 2 is dealt with - and only in part. It does not answer whether we are even allowed to know what terms/orgs/people have been salted, whether they can be 'commented on' (for example; a WIGO entry attacking them) or (more critically) whether coverage of the relevant topics (modern eugenics) can even be done with so much hacking out and verboten areas.
- OK, I wasn't aware of the various other locations, and also, not all of the issues listed here have been covered elsewhere. The information could be better organized - that could be a project for the new Oregon era. In any case I still appreciate the efforts of KarmaPolice. Pinkerite (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- A lot of this has already been addressed in RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation, and RationalWiki:Saloon bar#RationalWiki is now under new management, and RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation/Bylaws. Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is kinda critical in my book. Surrendering due to lack of other options is one thing. Being utterly gagged that we all gave to pretend that the gagging never happened really sticks (like a NDA with a clause 'must never reveal existence of NDA'). And makes me wonder whether if the gagging is so wide (I noticed at least one involved a publication which covered other crap stuff as well as eugenics) that RW should simply give up on covering that topic in it's entirety because reasonable coverage is no longer possible and it's best to admit to our readers this. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'll put together a master list of the settlement subjects and affected editors this weekend.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Thanks. Pinkerite (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- But you won't be able to post it on RW with the current Board members? You could post it on Discord, I guess. I made such a list for myself, probably close to complete, on my laptop based on discoverable information (internet search of lawsuits, RW page deletion log). Bongolian (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can post articles on my blog too, as I have done with an article I originally created on RW about one very famous racist. But RW has a much better SEO than my blog, which is why I've come here to publish articles, and also why racists used litigation threat against the New Mexico Rational Media Foundation - because RW articles about them with all the details about their racist actions and beliefs were showing up at the top of Google search results on their names. That's why I want to see articles about the racists back on Rational Wiki. Pinkerite (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I misinterpreted the comment and responded to a separate issue. As to the issue of posting info about the settlement and its ramifications, I assume Stabby will post a master list of the settlement subjects on RationalWiki, no need to post on Discord. Pinkerite (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can post articles on my blog too, as I have done with an article I originally created on RW about one very famous racist. But RW has a much better SEO than my blog, which is why I've come here to publish articles, and also why racists used litigation threat against the New Mexico Rational Media Foundation - because RW articles about them with all the details about their racist actions and beliefs were showing up at the top of Google search results on their names. That's why I want to see articles about the racists back on Rational Wiki. Pinkerite (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- But you won't be able to post it on RW with the current Board members? You could post it on Discord, I guess. I made such a list for myself, probably close to complete, on my laptop based on discoverable information (internet search of lawsuits, RW page deletion log). Bongolian (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Thanks. Pinkerite (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'll put together a master list of the settlement subjects and affected editors this weekend.
- This is kinda critical in my book. Surrendering due to lack of other options is one thing. Being utterly gagged that we all gave to pretend that the gagging never happened really sticks (like a NDA with a clause 'must never reveal existence of NDA'). And makes me wonder whether if the gagging is so wide (I noticed at least one involved a publication which covered other crap stuff as well as eugenics) that RW should simply give up on covering that topic in it's entirety because reasonable coverage is no longer possible and it's best to admit to our readers this. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can do my best with some of these questions as a list, based on what I know.
- 1). Everything you said here is correct, and they did it by taking advantage of New Mexico's lack of anti-SLAPP free speech laws. That's about what I'm at liberty to say.
- 2). The new Oregon-based Foundation is an entirely new organization, and is not bound by any legal settlements. However, you'll remember that I was asking people to step up to the fucking plate and become Board members. Two of our current Board members were members of the last Board and are legally bound by name to not be in charge of any website hosting any content whatsoever about the people we settled with.
- 3). Regular editors will be fine. Nobody ever tried to go after ordinary editors, and besides, Wikipedia editors have been sued before and successfully defended by the Wikimedia Foundation under Section 230. Under Oregon's laws, it is now financially possible for the Foundation to fight back against SLAPPs.
- 4). Not my place to answer.
- 5). I suggested to Stabby yesterday that now would be a good time to run a celebratory fundraiser, but he didn't respond.
- 6). I'm sure the Board is open to ideas. DuceMoosolini (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Re: 3) Two of the moderators were named by handle, not by legal name, in one of the legal demands. Moderators were not part of the legal settlement, so will be free to edit like other editors after the Board composition changes.
- Re: 5) I think that until the The new Foundation is officially recognized as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, donations may not be tax deductible, for those who care. Stabby can advise on this. Bongolian (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- A couple other questions:
- 7. Regarding who has access to the root server (which previously to my knowledge was just Trent and David Gerard), has anyone else been added?
- 8. Was the Taslima Nasrin DMCA situation resolved with the death of the old board or is the problem still ongoing? Plutocow (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- ☞ So to make it clear - once the sued board members are no longer board members, we can put all the censored content back up. That makes recruiting new board members a primary goal. I think we need a prospectus for potential board members. Pinkerite (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- YES TO CELEBRATORY FUNDRAISER. I'm ready to help with that - let me know how I can help @Stabby the Misanthrope. ~ Pinkerite (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- ☞ So to make it clear - once the sued board members are no longer board members, we can put all the censored content back up. That makes recruiting new board members a primary goal. I think we need a prospectus for potential board members. Pinkerite (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- @DuceMoosolini Sorry for not answering earlier, but yes, I would like to do a fundraiser. But I need to know how much money the Foundation may need to meet its various goals, or even what those goals are. The board has a proper meeting this weekend (hopefully), and that's one of the things I'm planning to discuss.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- 1. I do believe that a kind of 'official narrative' should be put up detailing the whole affair. If nothing else, this is now history and as Bonglian points out, is 90% recoverable from other sources.
- 2a. Once the list has been made, suggest a 'field expert' looks at said list and work out whether the cuts make subject coverage too redacted to be viable.
- 2b: Does any of the trioka plan to be off the board any time soon? RW needs to know if say, one only plans to be around for a year or two.
- 5. I suggest each new fiscal year putting a fundraiser up of annual running costs + any planned improvements. So for 24/25 remaining months, a margin and critical fixes? Yeah, might be six months of begging bars etc but RW has a deep technical debt to clear. Perhaps if we ask nice, David G might give a vague guesstimate of what technical stuff needs to be done, how much and order of priority.
- One idea is to have RW merch. A lot of small charities allow their name etc to be used for such stuff on a profit share model. On a related note, I think Luigi was onto something regarding RW developing a proper mascot we could then use for such merch etc.
- 6. As I said above, think a proper social media outreach is the start of this. Get some management software, so 'one dashboard rules them all'. Then use them as official RW feeds etc - announcements, bigging up new things (new gold/silver pages?) and reposting news etc. On the last, I feel it's best to stick to a tighter pro-science/anti-crank etc POV (rather than covering social justice etc things) in a bid to not get pigeonholed as a 'far left/woke' org.
- 9. My general impression is that David wants out on that side of things (which is totally understandable), so feel the board needs to have a honest chat on that. One thought; whether he might be open to be RWs media contact or something (he is 'a real person's and has done media things before which helps). KarmaPolice (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to resign from the Board. I wasn't going to run in the next election because staying up until 2:00 AM in my time zone (UTC+8) for Board meetings has been getting too much for me at my age. However, I will only resign if somebody competent is willing to replace me. Spud (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Re 9: David was the other (now only?) person with server access after Tm, right? If we need new sysadmins I'm up for volunteering, we're still on an EOL MW and I wouldn't like to see RW fall further into the tech debt rabbit hole to the point it becomes more and more unmaintainable. I'm also open to discussing my experience privately with the board if they want to know my credentials. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- As far as finding new Board members, it might be a good idea for someone in the current membership to outline expected duties and time commitments. Risks have now been minimized, which is a big plus for finding prospective Board members. One option might be to reach out to past Board members from the old organization who are still in good standing, even if they haven't contributed much of late. The list of former-Board members can be found here:[[RationalWiki:The RationalWiki Foundation/List of board members] Bongolian (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- 2b. I'll argue that in some ways it's a bonus to have Board members who are not that active in RW mainspace as either an editor or mod - not only does this reduce the chances of burnout but also strengthens the S-230 protection (for at least one old suit made an issue of the fact RMF members had edited the offending pages, producing a possible legal crack). However, I do not think RW is strong enough at this point to survive any change of leadership right now.
- As far as finding new Board members, it might be a good idea for someone in the current membership to outline expected duties and time commitments. Risks have now been minimized, which is a big plus for finding prospective Board members. One option might be to reach out to past Board members from the old organization who are still in good standing, even if they haven't contributed much of late. The list of former-Board members can be found here:[[RationalWiki:The RationalWiki Foundation/List of board members] Bongolian (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- 9. My general impression is that David wants out on that side of things (which is totally understandable), so feel the board needs to have a honest chat on that. One thought; whether he might be open to be RWs media contact or something (he is 'a real person's and has done media things before which helps). KarmaPolice (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- But, we do need to accept Spud's 'getting too old for this shit' - perhaps including a clear retirement date and (if possible) reducing the stress load (such as having meetings 18-21h EST on a day they can do a breakfast meet?). Similar for the other two members. Which reminds me; I think the board does need to make a list of RWians who are willing to pitch in / help out when needed. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. A bunch of us here are ready to pitch in but we need some coordination with the official leaders of the organization. And the legal protections for board members needs to be spelled out in exact detail, perhaps on a page here called "FOR PROSPECTIVE BOARD MEMBERS" or something like that, rather than alluded to in comments in various locations. It's not really surprising that people were not jumping at the chance to join up right after the legal peril visited on the New Mexico era board members. But that doesn't mean we will never be willing - especially if restoring content (yes from scratch already) hinges on new board members. Pinkerite (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is why I feel someone in the know should do a postmortem on the whole affair and what lessons we can learn from it. Plus, I don't think it would hurt to produce 'role descriptions' for both board members and mods so folks are more clear to the workload etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a place where a grander 'to do list' [for non-mainspace work] can be assembled so the Board can start to utilise what assets we have better [ie people] to help in the plan of 'RW renewal' in a semi-organised manner? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. A bunch of us here are ready to pitch in but we need some coordination with the official leaders of the organization. And the legal protections for board members needs to be spelled out in exact detail, perhaps on a page here called "FOR PROSPECTIVE BOARD MEMBERS" or something like that, rather than alluded to in comments in various locations. It's not really surprising that people were not jumping at the chance to join up right after the legal peril visited on the New Mexico era board members. But that doesn't mean we will never be willing - especially if restoring content (yes from scratch already) hinges on new board members. Pinkerite (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- But, we do need to accept Spud's 'getting too old for this shit' - perhaps including a clear retirement date and (if possible) reducing the stress load (such as having meetings 18-21h EST on a day they can do a breakfast meet?). Similar for the other two members. Which reminds me; I think the board does need to make a list of RWians who are willing to pitch in / help out when needed. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Recreating articles?[edit]
Old arguments/off-topic hypotheticals |
---|
The idea that we shouldn't cover these people again sounds absurd to me. I won't lie, until these lawsuits I didn't really care about our articles on racialism, but as I said before, I think that, if anything, the fact that they went so far in order to destroy us is a strong evidence that we were doing something right with those articles. Maybe we should focus more on their organizations and research instead of the individuals, but I really think that we should have a strong coverage on racialism. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
If you guys had any sense, you'd stop publically discussing your plans for wriggling out of a legal settlement. I hope none of you plan to replace the members of the board yourself. Christopher (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
|


As both a moderator and a member of the Board, I must insist on an immediate end to all discussion of recreating articles that we were compelled to delete. You are putting the future of the site in jeopardy. You are putting me and other current and former Board members at personal risk. Please, just stop it! Spud (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)