RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>

Add This silly entry[edit]

Oh look, some fool put up some A440 woo. On AEON, of course, which is a garbage website. Here is the link. --UglyRat (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Have a header line to the effect 'Are you looking for this?' (Unless there is an article on 'folk hobbies (being partly fakelore) designed to amuse tourists who will put money in the collecting basket' the cloggers do not fall within the remit of RW.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

According to NBC...[edit]

Looks like someone doesn't know what an op-ed piece is and how it does not represent the editorial position. I guess that's what happens when you rely on echo chamber media. London Grump (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we make up a rule?[edit]

Like upvote if you think the entry is a clog, and downvote if not? —ClickerClock (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


The Intersect of Kentucky, NBC's Chuck and Egypt's Eye of Ra[edit]

I hope someone can add this to the voting portion of this page, it's apparently locked because of super-vandals. I also hope that it will be done "verbatim" like the eponymous company. Thanks for your attention and assistance to this urgent matter.

Heytheresuez (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

paraphrasing is bad[edit]

One of the great things I got out of Rationalwiki was the habit of questioning paraphrased or 'reinterpreted' text. The latest entry in the clogs, "The truth about obesogens: can dust and chemicals make you fat? Here's a clue: no" is one example of such paraphrases, which are misleading, and which crop more and more around here. They also show that the author of that entry did not think critically. The article in the Guardian specifically does not contain the conclusion that "obesogens" will not cause obesity - it includes the opinion of certain researchers about that topic, as well as about the work of other researchers. The most important thing that can be taken about that article is not whether "obesogens" cause obesity, but that before such a conclusion can be taken, proper work has to be done. In the meantime and based on the existing knowledge, people with authority to issue such an opinion (i.e. specialists in the field) tell us there's no cause for alarm.

Does this belong in the clogs at all? The guardian is, irrespective of its quality, a mainstream newspaper and hardly part of the 'clogged-up fringes of the internet'. — Unsigned, by: 145.64.134.245 / talk / contribs

while the guardian is a reputable source of news, this is an opinion piece and therefore would fall under blogs or clogs, depending on if you agree with the message or not. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)