Information icon.svg Survey Closing: The RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 will close this Friday, November 24th. See the results.

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>

"Alt-right" Wikipedia[edit]

The Wired article does draw me in since it sounds like an article that would ridicule this wiki, and besides, it's Wired, but after reading, I have to say that the article itself is a bit disappointing. I find it very annoying that they characterize the "alt-right" more often than I like simply "conservative" rather than "far-right" like they should be characterized. While they did describe them as "fringe" at one point (which is more apt to describe them), just because they're growing doesn't make them less "fringe" and more "conservative". I also don't like how the article characterizes Allum Bokhari, tech writer for Breitbart, as someone who is rational, someone who simply "disagrees" rather than being likely an insidious fringe character who likes Donald Trump.

The problem is, not everyone agrees on the facts. “Just look at the source list,” Bokhari tells me. “The most respectable news organizations on Wikipedia are things like the New York Times and the Washington Post.” (By the tone of his voice, he might as well preface those names with "fake" and "failing.") Meanwhile, alt-right mainstays like Infowars or the Daily Caller don’t have the kind of traditional fact-checking programs to make it into the site.

I give credit to the article for taking this seriously, though, acknowledging Brietbart's rise and being a bit ominous and sad at the end. But I don't like how they described their far-right as "conservative" or "right-wing" when they deserve more extreme labels. If not, I guess I'll just associate conservatism with general shittiness if this keeps up. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Re:Autism can include happiness, belonging and positive health article[edit]

The article relates to outreach by Jonathan Weiss, though the link title implies that there is a finding, which there is nothing to it. While there is nothing wrong about outreach, the entry is highly misleading. This doesn't seem like it really belongs here unless we have a space here linking to support groups. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Bikini article[edit]

Yeah, this probably belongs on the Clogosphere page. Blitz (Complaints Box) 13:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Google would rather talk about this, not privacy[edit]

"Written by Glenn Greenwald"?[edit]

Why are we adding this after every article he wrote? Dogeatsdog (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Evil Zionist (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
there was a spat awhiles back where a user took it upon themselves to label wigos with the source. they where usually all sources deemed by the user to be anti israeli. much hilarity followed, it was decided that it was a waste of time and generally fuckwitted thing to do. the user was eventually permabanned for related hijinks. they popped up ocassionally after under new usernames and feigned surprise when their obvious and transparent actions where rumbled. theres one reason why not. what was your reason to adding it again? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I usually add information about writers, especially if we have articles about them, Somebody might want to use the piece to improve those articles. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
We have an article on Glenn Greenwald and some people have limited time and may want to read certain stuff by certain authors and not read certain other stuff by certain other authors. However, if it is so controversial, I'm not married to it. Evil Zionist (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump "speaks at a third-grade level"[edit]

"Trump likes to talk about how smart he is. A linguistic analysis shows he speaks at a third-grade level."

Aren't reading-level analyses pseudoscience? I can't see anything on this here website, but Google found this critique on Language Log.[1] --Gospatric (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, Trump uses fillers (um, er, etc) 1/3 as often as Hillary Clinton.[2] --Gospatric (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's an indicator of intelligence. He's probably trying to make his speeches... "easier" to understand, so you don't stop listening out of boredom. You'd really have to analyse how he speaks when not standing behind a lectern. —Kazitor, pending 09:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)