RationalWiki talk:Webshites/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Have

Have a look here at my version.   .  ^{So, that's the tune they play on their fascist banjos} 10:00, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Seems like a lot of extra work, + marks of 10 for categories like "misc" aren't really meaningful. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:18, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Not sure I see the point of the table? I presume you intended the "ratings" to be determined by voting? ħuman 15:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Jesus freaks

I meant that header as a place-holder, I hope we can come up with something better when we figure out what those sites actually "are"? ħuman 15:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

blogs

What about ID blogs like uncommondescent and evolution news and views? Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 10:33, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Blogs are webshites, right? I see no reason not to add them. The "blogroll" is mostly for "our" blogs, although perhaps that should be merged into the websites article now. ħuman 17:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Wiki 4 CAM

Has pretty much died. I just checked recent changes, over the last 30 days there were about 15 edits. ħuman 20:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Is completely dead, it now redirect to scam sites. - π 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh they have fixed that now, move along. - π 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate for addition?

I was gonna add this: WORLDVIEW WEEKEND WITH BRANNON HOWSE but don't know? It was linked to by PJR here What think, Oh wise ones? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Totally on-mission. We could probably have an article about the guy. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF ...

... is this shite? Anti everything. What QEII has ever done to him gOD only knows:

“”We see the Dame of Malta, Elizabeth II the treasonous, false Monarch of England about to enter her Canada on the 28th of June 2010. The same whore who purposely pollutes the planet daily to suit her depopulation plans utilising the radioactive element called Uranium. Canada currently is the second biggest producer of this deadly poison and may again be number one in a short space of time. The idea of the use of uranium on the populace is to lower the population levels and at the same time in other Western regions to create incapacity.

—[1]

Fucking MAD! 00:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mutter, grumble

Unfortunate. Seems like rational wiki has been hijacked by the same hateful, ideological purists that inhabit freethoughtblogs. I suppose the nature of a wiki makes it easy to turn it into a personal attack site.^{— Unsigned, by: some bunchanumbers I can't be arsed looking up / talk / contribs} Sophie^Wilder 21:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It traced back to Las Vegas, NV, if that's of any relevance to anyone, forensically speaking. (Probably not, because what could we do with it?) EVDebs (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Could be Elvis. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Submitted for your approval

http://www.furaffinity.net/journals/cigarskunk/ --98.248.140.60 (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just like to add my two (and a half!) cents:

http://theopenscroll.blogspot.com/

http://www.imissamericanpie.com/blog/

(Under Bible-thumping!)

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/

(Under Racist!) --Chair tater (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Found another one, thanks to Fark. Well, in one of their comment threads anyways:

http://fuckyeahdeadcrackers.tumblr.com Chair tater (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And this was found from a Return Of Kings comment thread, unsurprisingly: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/ --Chair tater (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

http://godevidence.com/ where one finds such articles as: Atheism’s insurmountable problem of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, God Is Real...Why modern physics has discredited atheism, Why life could not have emerged without God. Tekunojutsuka (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

why /r/MensRights?

do you really think, that /r/MensRights (http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights) is as bad as all the other sites listed here? for me this seems to be disproportional.^{— Unsigned, by: 86.56.141.225 / talk / contribs}

You did notice the section it was in, didn't you?

Disproportional compared to what? "All" is a wide target, as the level of "badness" covered by the list is uneven, and it covers different kinds of "badness".--ZooGuard (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Also it can sometimes be as bad as some of the worst on that list and regularly as bad as many of them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure about Tucker Max?

Yeah, the guy's a douchebag, but he's at least self-aware enough to acknowledge it. I would love to see a link to said shitfit over his fanbase though. EVDebs (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dick Masterson and MABTW.com

Regarding this site's stance on sexism, how should we approach this guy? http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xoKiH8JJM

On one hand, I kind of like him because to me I believe he is a master troll akin to Andy Kaufman, Sacha Baron Cohen(Borat), or Ari Shaffer(The Amazing Racist). In addition, I feel his work is sorta self satirizing to an extent and not completely serious, and exposes the kind of logic you have to to digest in order to be a chauvinist. The stereotypical porno mustache and aviator glasses were to me a dead give-away. "Dick Masterson" is a pseudonym and the guy irl from what I hear is happily married. Dick Masterson is a friend of my personal hero, Maddox of TheBestPageinthe Universe fame. Together, they host a podcast that I think you guys would like called TheBiggestProblem in the universe. http://thebiggestproblemintheuniverse.com/

Should we make an article about him? If so, how should we write the article? Should we link his site on this list? Shall in inquire him regarding his views before we do anything? RakortheTerrible (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Right Stuff (.biz)

No, not the film about the early U.S. space program. I'm not sure under what category this would fall, but after exploring this site one night, it became clear it would be right at home here. It was launched in October 2012 and appears to promote something roughly resembling radical traditionalism, minus the more technophobic bits and pagan motifs, though my observations could be off. The site contains articles promoting everything from homophobia to MRA talking points to racial realism, but often with a strange pseudo-liberal/pseudo-rationalist tinge (for example, this article: "The Liberal Case for Eliminating Homosexuality"). Some of the authors are ex-libertarians, and they generally promote an anti-liberal, openly authoritarian stance, including the assertion that freedom makes people miserable and that they are happier when under someone else's thumb. On their "about us" page, they describe themselves further as follows:

"What sets us apart from others within the 'alt-right' blogging community is our focus on modern narrative; in particular, it’s re-appropriation and redirection. The result goes by varying names within our circle: anti-prometheism, post-postmodern, right-wing progressivism, neo-situationism, Cultural Metternichs."

It's an odd mix of ideologies which would definitely fall under the crank ideas/authoritarianism portions of RW's mission. What's somewhat painful is that I have found some valid points made in the site's content critiquing certain postmodern ideas and extreme moonbattery/Jacobinism (such as the point that something being a "social construct" doesn't automatically make it bad), but unfortunately, they go way beyond legit criticisms and into blanket (conscious and willful) privilege blindness and reactionary bullshit, such as seeing "white guilt" virtually everywhere. With that, I thought I'd introduce this website to the RationalWiki community for further analysis and (hopefully) future inclusion on this list (perhaps even an article of its own if there's enough material, which there very well may be). Accountless Procrastinator 71.182.158.210 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Kinda sounds like alternativeright.com in a way. Only with a little less coked up, white boy roid rage. 74.141.89.204 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I came across the site you mention on a Google search trying to find out more about TRS's ideology, but didn't visit the site itself. It does not appear to have an article on this site, nor did a site search turn up any mention of it. Part of their tagline is "an online magazine of radical traditionalism," and by luck, I was able to find an article on radical traditionalism here. Unfortunately, however, the article is relatively brief, and while tangentially-related topics such as racial realism, VDARE, Third positionism, other wingnuttery-moonbattery combos such as Lyndon LaRouche, and the aforementioned radical traditionalism have articles here, RationalWiki seems to lack coverage of this particular (and apparently growing) pseudo-intellectual ideological element of the extreme right. I posted an article from The Right Stuff to WIGO:Clogs, and while I took a slight gamble with site etiquette by admitting it there, a large part of my motivation for doing so was to raise awareness of this ideology within the RW community (which I hope to join officially soon). Accountless Procrastinator 107.20.248.254 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/4xlvao/if_they_were_able_to_see_the_guy_who_cleans_their/ Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Feminist Critics, a webshite?

Why is Feminist Critics a webshite? They're not even MRAs; they're pro-feminists who will sometimes agree with feminism and other times criticize it. Faunas (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

thatincelblogger

I have no problem being here, in fact I deem it as an honor. We disagree ideologically and basically anything listed here is a blog I'll read.

However, regarding me... This text is silly. I can understand that somebody would describe me as a Nice Guy (though I am anything but) or say I believe TAC are atheists disagreeing with me (they're not, they don't even have to be atheists) but why write a completely incorrect thing, like that even Men's Rights or Red Pill consider me too extreme to post there? The things is, I never even tried to post there nor do I want to. If some dweeb (and I know at least one) uses c/p and puts mine and fschmidt's posts on such subs that's not us. Neither of us are MRAs or Red Pillers. In fact, we despise PUAs completely.

It's just that you people should have more facts in going along with your mission. I can write you a 2-3 sentence summary of myself that will be less positive than what is written now and completely true. ^{— Unsigned, by: Thatincelblogger / talk / contribs} 22:21, 6 September 2014‎

Write it here on the talk page & we'll have a look at it. No promises. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Boycott American Women

Is that site really sexist, or is it merely opposed to American women, while thinking foreign women are awesome? See, e.g., statements such as this one: "We American men are starting to REJECT AMERICAN WOMEN and get married to foreign women, who don't have the same bullshit spoiled little bitch feminist attitudes that American women have." Landmartian (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sexist, the whole "Foreign women are better" is complete with a lot of bullshit like they're more "submissive" and these men like them because they feel that they basically display less agency. It goes into obvious racism as well when we're dealing with Asian women.BlackProg (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If it were racist, wouldn't they be making a distinction between white and Asian women, rather than American and foreign women? Landmartian (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Foreign women" = non-"West"ern women = submissive, non-white women. See here. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hairy Crab cakes (talk/stalk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DoNotLink

At present, all the links on this page lead directly to the websites in question. In my opinion, though, it'd probably be better if they didn't. We shouldn't be affording these people pageviews or ad revenue. How do I utilize DoNotLink so that the links lead to mirrors of the websites rather than the websites themselves? I looked at DoNotLink's own website, and while I could find an explanation of how it works, I couldn't find explicit instructions regarding how to use it. Fastzander (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

RW has always linked directly to its sources, if it was possible. The only exception are sites that would notice the referrer and do something bad about it, such as sending a wave of their users this way (that's wy RW doesn't link to Neo-Nazis) or redirecting to a special "landing page" (NaturalNews, if my memory serves right).--ZooGuard (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because RW has done something one way doesn't mean that it shouldn't change. Why not use DoNotLink? It doesn't hurt anything, and may help us not help those who we link to. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hairy Crab cakes (talk/stalk) 00:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If the thought that clicking on a link will "help" the owner of a site is intolerable to you, I suggest not clicking that link. RationalWiki should be above this kind of tribalistic pettiness. I've already confronted someone who used unnecessary archives for a site they deemed ideologically unfit, and I don't want a repeat of that. If you are concerned about promoting these kinds of sites, the very existence and contents of this page should be of greater concern to you, as it's starting to turn into a poor clone of DMOZ.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Um... The reason "DoNotLink" is used is so that Google (and other engines and trackers) don't count any instances of links going to a site, because more links to a site means that it is more trustworthy. I'm not unhappy with people clicking on links from here (in fact, links from here help readers understand our points), I'm worried that linking to, for example, a hate site will boost the ability of that site's owner to make money and propagate their views. (edit) Of course providing any link does help the owner of another website, via on-site ads and such; however, the information gained by providing that link is greater than any benefit to a hate group. Basically, links are necessary; however, we should reduce their ability to help those who we oppose as much as possible, and making sure that they don't get bumped up in the search ranks does that. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hairy Crab cakes (talk/stalk) 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't we already do that through our use of Nofollow? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought FCP was aware of that, that's why I didn't mention it. All external links on RW are wp:nofollow by default.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if RW used nofollow. If so, then using DNL still has no harm. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hairy Crab cakes (talk/stalk) 23:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would be a pointless exercise that wastes people's time, and might look spammy, which could affect our search rankings. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll buy that putting people through a redirect wastes time. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hairy Crab cakes (talk/stalk) 00:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is this site "Crackpot"?

I'm posting this here because I can't think of a better place.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/reptiles/reptiles28.htm

Sure it promotes something you don't agree with, but maybe if you read it, and put it under scrutiny, then you could be surprised!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyT9g5-V9Vw

Its relative well known in the Conspiracy community as you can see (video of one of its more famour articles), and in two languages, and therefore has a larger audience.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bibliotecapleyades&oq=biblio&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i57j5j69i62l2&client=tablet-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8

A simple Google search shows how popular it is.

If so, why blame us for this site's apparent crankpottery? Who says it's crank-infested?

It promotes something you don't agree with... - again, RW never said anything about this site, leave us alone.

It's relatively well known in the conspiracy community [...] |and [it is] in two languages, and therefore has a larger audience - just because something exists in several languages doesn't mean it's already received by multinational audience. It could be just as easily a collaboration of 10 basement dwelling online friends who are spread worldwide who share a taste for crankpottery thinking something like this:

-Hey, wanna make a shitty website with our conspiracies?

-Sure. But I guess nobody will read it if we write it only in English.

-Good point. Let's make it in several languages, then!

A simgle Google search shows how popular it is - ad infinitum.

Loc (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hindutva websites

There are a lot of websites espousing wingnut views, but missed the attention of this site because awareness about Hindutva is low compared to awareness about Islamism and other extremist views. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Add 'em. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 03:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reflist doesn't work?

Is it just me, or {{reflist}} isn't being displayed on this page? It is in the page's source code, but it just won't show once generated into a proper wiki page. Loc (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not just you. Doesn't work for <references/> either. Might be summat to do with the enormous number of external links in the article? Scream!! (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not linking to racist pages

Why is the policy (however unofficial) to not link to racist pages, but homophobic ones are OK? Seems inconsistent. Any hate-oriented page should be included. --Delius1967 (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell

I was wondering why Lew Rockwell's site is only a partial webshite while something like CounterPunch is considered a complete webshite? I understand that CounterPunch has been a Pol Pot apologist and has published anti-Semitic articles, but isn't Lew Rockwell's publishing of Neo-Confederates, Christian Supremacist, and racist articles just as bad. I haven't read either of these sites, but is there really nothing rational to read from CounterPunch that can't be read from Lew Rockwell's site? It seems to me that we recommend the anti-war articles from Lew Rockwell, as well as AntiWar.com, but from what I understand CounterPunch is also anti-war. Now if there is some vast anti-Semitic conspiracy to their anti-war stance then I understand the difference, but otherwise I see no reason for Lew Rockwell site to be consider anything but another Austrian economics site with some good content.--Owlman (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Addicting Info

Addicting Info is nothing more than unintelligent rambling by moonbats. The site itself is essentially all bullshit, featuring articles such as this. I think it deserves a mentioning, and how it is commonly used by liberal Facebook pages such as Being Liberal. Kentuckyball (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Femitheist Reborn

The Femitheist character is an example of Poe's Law, it's a fictional/satirical character. Firstly, the first sentence on the About Page of her Youtube channel states 'I am not a Feminist'. Secondly, I follow two guys on youtube who are friends with the woman who portrayed the Femitheist, and they've joked about she's not a feminist, yet all the MRA/antifeminist dorks claim she is in their videos debunking her (deliberately) outlandish claims. MisterBlueSky (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Front Porch Republic

I'm not sure it's accurate to classify that site as simply "Right-Wing". They have, for example, posted quite favorable views of Bernie Sanders. Their politics is idiosyncratic and doesn't seem to fit the typical American left-right divide. (The American Conservative, which is not listed on this page, is another example; they too have a soft spot for Sanders). BoggleYourMind (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Chanty Binx and Cora Segal

I understand that they are very relevant when talking about the handful of feminists who do fit the straw-feminist image, but do they happen to run their own webshites? If not, then they should be moved to a more relevant article or perhaps get their own. Blitz (Complaints Box) 05:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Jesus-is-savior sex offender allegations

While I do agree that his website deserves to be listed as a Webshite, I don't think it's a good idea to post allegations like that unless there is indeed solid evidence that he is a registered sex offender. I checked the Guam sex offender registry (http://www.guamcourts.org/sor/disclaimer.asp) and he does not appear to be in the list. I think it is better to remove it - including it to bash the writer would be an example of Argumentum ad hominem.Advicedoge (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on cranks

I don't see why we have linked to the LiberalViewer of ROARMag; our description of ROAR even admits that they aren't cranks. I am also going to move Cato since they don't usually write libertarian crankery.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

SovCits

Why no SovCit webshites? Plenty out there from both sides of the pond.

Firthy2002 (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Restraining order abuse blog

I've removed the links to a restraining order abuse blog that was taken private pursuant to a court order. The author notes:

Any time a specific word or phrase Phil Bredfeldt had asked Google to be alerted about appeared in anything I published online (like “red herring,” say), an email was automatically generated by Google and transmitted to Mr. Bredfeldt.

This, attorney Christopher Scileppi told Pima County Superior Court Judge Richard Gordon, represented a communication FROM me TO Mr. Bredfeldt. . . . .

Because no-contact-in-over-10-years more than lames the allegation that I have “stalked” and “harassed” the couple, they had to get creative. Satisfaction of stalking and harassment statutes requires that some conduct be directed AT the so-called victim (e.g., phone calls TO him or her, or emails or texts sent TO him or her). In the past decade, I’ve only ever written ABOUT the couple, who live in a different state, and speech ABOUT people is protected by the First Amendment. So the Bredfeldts concocted a workaround: They set up an automated service to contact them and then alleged that contact from Google equated to contact from me (in violation of a 2013 injunction that prohibited such contact). . . . .

Judge Gordon made no effort to conceal he knew little about computers or the Internet, and Mr. Scileppi, the plaintiffs’ attorney (a criminal attorney), produced an expert witness on computers and “cybercrimes” to testify (also a criminal attorney). —Phil Bredfeldt Complains to the Court That He’s Been Stalked by the Blog’s Author via Google Alerts

I'm surprised that someone would bother to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees and expert witnesses to try to get a blog taken down. The judge probably figured that some harassment was indeed probably going on if people would feel a need to go to that much effort to put a stop to that guy's blogging activities. Dr. Carson (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

We ought to cover "likely to be fake news" sources.

This may be more mainspace than RWSpace, but there's circulating on the internet a document with a list of the biggest dumps of false information on social media, by means of clickbait. So what's everyone think, should I just review the list and add missing ones here or should we maybe go for a mainspace page(such as clickbait)? I think junk news is pretty missional in general ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A separate page for Fake news would be lovely. (We can clarify that "Fake news" is a broad term and includes news sources that sometimes get things right or sources that just overexagerrate or de-contextualize news.) Clickbait should preferably be merged in, and any fake news on this page can just go there. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Started in my userspace. Faces the problem that I'm very very very lazy and I'll probably not finish it to a mainspace quality for months. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms

I've removed Kiwi Farms, as its terms and conditions forbid doxing, and they're not hateful towards trans people - they target people such as otherkin, adult diaper fetishists, etc. It just so happens that sometimes trans people fall into those categories. They're more about going after the crazy people on Tumblr. --Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Victor J. Aguilar for Politics->Other, or maybe "Various internet kooks"

I was looking for some good free high-school-level Geometry textbooks while answering a question on Reddit's /r/learnmath, and Daniel Callahan's restatement of Euclid's Elements in modern mathematical language referred to a book called Geometry Without Multiplication by Victor J. Aguilar as recommended reading, and this book contains over-excited language, odd martial-arts terminology (the whole series is called "Geometry-do" and the first book lists a colored-belt system), self-congratulatory asides, numerous rants about the Common Core and the Post-Autistic Economics movement, and phrases like "So why not put the video game controller aside and take up the compass and straight edge?" and "Today, American geometers are graphic artists. They draw pretty [Geometer's] Sketchpad graphs and they can make shapes slide like Peggy Fleming and do flips like Nadia Comăneci; they know nothing of logic."

Then I read Axiomatic Economics, the website that he frequently references, and found his attempted axiomatization of economics to be laughable, and unlike the axiomatizations of geometry and probability that he looked to for inspiration, divorced from reality; I might actually read the book of the same name for more laffs (it is said to require multi-variable calculus in its summary form, and real analysis in its full form, but I have gone to grad school in mathematics and can probably tell how far off his rocker this guy is). When fans of the Ludwig von Mises Institute call you a crank, that's a bad sign; BTW, unlike von Mises, Aguilar supports government intervention in significant enough cases that he can't well be called a Libertarian crank, despite sharing their love of unworkable axiomatization. Julyo (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

--> I created the other segment in politics because the site I referenced contained heavy doses of political content that couldn't exactly be classified as being on the political "left" or political "right" (or "center", for that matter). I'd say that if the content is majorly political that it belongs in Politics->Other and that if it doesn't it does belong in "Various Internet Kooks". Hex4 (talk) 19:43, 26 march 2017 (UTC)

Aw look, an old vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRg0kvnD54 Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

KotakuInAction is STILL angry

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/62ivmv/humor_it_seems_like_kia_is_still_in_rationalwikis/

FuzzyCatPotato of the Wobbly Numbers (talk/stalk) 03:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Relevant SciBabe

http://scibabe.com/incomplete-list-bullshit-websites/ Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Are there any entries on this page that you think should be added to a different section?

For instance, which entries in "Bible-thumping" and "Lack-of-religious-text-thumping (a.k.a. "Rationals", "Skeptics")" seem to fit more at home with entries featured in sections like, "Conservative, right-wing, "cultural libertarians", "classical liberals", and reactionary"?^{— Unsigned, by: Historybuff / talk / contribs}

I don't know (writing this so it archives properly). Christopher (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This page still suffers a little from having been merged with another page called "List of Internet Kooks" a while back. It's very difficult to categorize many of the webshites here as they have overlapping characteristics. For example, a right wing bible-thumper who's also a paranoid conspiracy theorist could be classified under bible-thumpers or conpiracists. I tried my best to clean up the categories but there could be some more work done. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A lot of these entries are shit

Poorly written and not sourced. Listicles like this are either meant to be intra-wiki link farms or brief summaries that link you out to better explanations; the article fails both. Would it make sense to require that statement are cited properly -- since this whole article is about living people? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 12:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's overdue for a purge, especially the large amount of links to youtoob kooks with nothing but a link supplied. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then...

Why is ShoeOnHead in "Sometimes shite, sometimes not"? TheMyon (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Two MGTOW webshites that might be worth adding

NO, MA'AM and The Masculine Principle. They seem to be written by the same author, and the latter links a lot to the former. ThineAntidote (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Page should be renamed to "people you disagree with"

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: 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

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

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:

• New Age
• Pseudoscience
• Religion
• Ufology
• Politics
• Racialism
• Sexuality
• Conspiracy
• Internet

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? 65.129.148.188 (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

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)

Pruning.

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)