From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Re SPOV: Anti-Crackpot index

Hi chaps,

So I've done a bit of research, and, with the exception of major damage to an individual or entity (if said individual is a citizen of the UK; I am uncertain as to whether the website / concern need be incorporated in same) I understand that SPOV is legally permissible.

I was wondering if a reference to this article could be made as part of the scope of the broader picture (since this post is from the vixra blog, and is therefore relevant), as per your policy which I was pointed to in my last edit where I made the mistake of applying Wikipedia:NPOV since I thought that that was more polite. But RationalWiki is not Wikipedia; so that is fine, I would be glad to improve your article according to your policies.

It would certainly be fairly easy to frame the anti-crackpot index in terms of SPOV. It might even be notable enough to merit its own article! I trust that RationalWiki is humble enough to apply SPOV to itself, or some of its more extreme constituents. Unless, of course, you have a set of meta-policies that are applicable as a double-standard. In which case, I would appreciate being pointed to those, so that I know what is applicable in regards to meta regarding this wiki.

Or, if you are into recursion, what policies you have in regards to meta-meta, or 2-meta, then 3-meta, etc. I am making the natural assumption, that, being a finite wiki, your set of potential policies in terms of recursive double standards is finite.

As a meta-remark, I suppose I am also assuming that since you are RationalWiki, that you are staffed and run by rationalists. Therefore I am assuming that there is some form of logical system that you apply to police yourself and your policies internally. If I am mistaken in this regard, feel free to correct me on said account and I will adapt my understanding as to that your wiki is not fully governed by law, but at least partly by chaos; and therefore that it is not, in fact, ultimately governed by rational people. In which case, I would be interested in knowing as to whether you might / why you should not give due consideration to adopting Neutral policies, as per wikipedia.

All the Best, CthuluTick (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR. What the fuck are you on about? Staffed? Run by? Scream!! (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
(And why pick this page to be TL;DRy on?) Scream!! (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like LessWrong spill-over - both the inline links and the style are reminescent on how people gain credit there. So, either a LessWronger, or someone confusing RW for LW-Lite.
Tone and context aside, they apparently want to sanitize the description of viXra, apparently at some point baly enough to look into suing RW for defamation. Given the links to viXra's blog, it's either Philip Gibbs, or a fan of his/viXra.
Oh, and if I wanted to be writing stuff under NPOV or some other Wikipedia policy, I would be doing it on Wikipedia. It is kind of obvous, isn't it? --ZooGuard (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


Should 'X' be read as 'ag'? (in need of)? (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)