RationalWiki talk:Webshites

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Fun thing to do[edit]

Use waybackmachine to look back at when Conspiracy sites first started:

Churns out the same shit over and over

For example, quote mines:

"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order."

David Rockefeller, long accused of being a shill for the NWO, in his memior finally tired of the facade and admitted what he had been accused of for many decades, when he said this about his familys involvement in the NWO:

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

And in 2008, with the election of President Barack Hussein Obama, Henry Kissinger said that Obama would bring about the long desired New World Order:

"I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a 'New World Order' can be created. It's a great opportunity. It isn't such a crisis..."

No longer is the New World Order the realm of "conspiracy theorists" frantically writing stories of government takeovers from a basement somewhere. No, the NWO is now shouted loudly from the rooftops by every leading government and political figure in newscasts 24 hours a day.

And then Henry Makow's site

And who could forget about Alex Jones, and everythign he's touched?

This might be a fine add to this lovely little abomination-topia of a section.[edit]

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/ This place is acrap-hole, it glorifies a whole bunch of pretty crappy things to do, and of course uses the bible as an excuse to do it.

Page should be renamed to "people you disagree with"[edit]

Look how ridiculously biased the politics section is:

206 right-wing "webshites" compared to 15 left-wing "webshites".

Are you guys even trying to hide your bias? Isn't this meant to be "Rational" Wiki? — Unsigned, by: Evoken / talk / contribs

  1. 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. Thank you.
  2. Please don't skimp on your required reading.
  3. We have a list of people who disagree with us. Thanks, though.
  4. "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a list of people who disagree with us, not a list of people we disagree with.</pedantry> Christopher (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Evoken, feel free to add more left-wing sources that deserve to be included. If you can demonstrate that they are poor sources of information then nobody will stop you. Nobody is claiming this is an exhaustive list. Be the change you wish to see in the world. CowHouse (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You ignore all these, they're hardly right wing. Plus all of this category. Christopher (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

Some of these "Webshites" are not actually overall consistently bad sources of information but rather people who have screwed up once or hold a small amount of loony views but decent sources in other areas. In other words, clever in some areas but crank in others. I think there should be some more-or-less rigid criteria for inclusion on this list because there seems to be too many of them that should fall into the "Sometimes site, sometimes shite" category.Advicedoge (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This damn page is unseemly[edit]

By size alone this page ranks in the top five or ten of biggest pages here and desperately needs to be trimmed and/or split. I propose coming up with a webshite taxonomy and splitting the page into several sub-pages, one for each bag of webshite. The first ten headers in the table of contents gives us a good first start, e.g. Pseudoscience, Religion, Politics, etc. It might also be useful to look at RW's biggest portals and use them as the top level of the taxonomy and use that as the basis of the spilt. Should we proceed on making a taxonomy and splitting the page up? Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I second this motion, the size of this page is indeed getting out of hand. GrammarCommie (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is a proposed taxonomy. I cross-referenced the list of portals with the most common navigation bars and got this:
Most of the farticles on the webshites page should map to one or more of these. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Though it looks as if most of the sections of this article will fit into those categories there are a few sections that appear to stand out. A few examples would be the "Techies" and "Sometimes site, sometimes shite" sections — Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs 01:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
True, though I would put "Techies" in Internet, and create a new category at the end for the head scratchers.
If you look at the list of portal icons on RationalWiki we could split this page even more. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What category are the GamerGate/atheist-right/anti-feminist tools in? (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC) RottingintheMidwest (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The manospere links are filed under sexuality. GrammarCommie (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Category finder: Desdemona Despair[edit]

I have been wanting to add a website called Desdemona Despair (url: desdemonadespair.net), which seems to be a website about global warming/climate change, but this site seems to push the narrative that it is too late to do anything about it, and that the world is going end. It seems close to doomsday, but nothing close to survivalism since it seems what it is telling us is to give up and panic. So therefore I enquire here: what is the category of best fit? --User4501 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


I recommend pruning all entries which lack a reason for inclusion. We should also push for more specific sourcing for inclusion reasoning, since the current standards are both lax and outright lazy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The great culling of 2019[edit]

I am initiating a line-by-line purge of the webshites pages as I get the time. If a link is dead, points to a dangerous spam site, or is completely incomprehensible and off topic, it will be deleted. I'm going to track progress on the list below. Please feel free to help us clean this mess up, and add your progress to the list.

Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Pruning drama[edit]

I'm going to be cutting out entries which seem to have been added due to drama or inverse stopped clock moments. If you dispute a removal, please discuss it on this thread. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)