Talk:RationalWiki/Archive 2

No benefit of the doubt

This article has been through AfD the consensus was merge or redirect. There have been no reliable sources showing notability. Please find some sources for notability before resurrecting this as a standalone article. The benefit of doubt has been exhausted and that is not a Wikipedia policy. The policy is to remove things if AfD shows they shouldn't be there and notability is what was shown to be missing.Dmcq (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Redirect to Conservapedia

I have observed that "RationalWiki" of late redirects to Conservapedia. This is a ridiculous idea. This is kind of like redirecting Conservapedia to Wikipedia. All three of them: Wikipedia, Conservapedia and RationalWiki are written from a completely different point of view.

My stance is:

• Either Delete RationalWiki
• Or Stop redirecting to Conservapedia

I believe that the time has come for such a discussion.

Also since Metapedia has survived a deletion debate, RationalWiki may survive such a debate as well.

The only reliable sources are about the business with Conservapedia, it has not established separate notability. Yoou need to find some sources talking about Wikipedia itself as per WP:Notability. The last AfD noted at the top of this talk page said it should be redirected or merged to Conservapedia. You really need to find some source saying something else about it. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

When did this come back?

So rationalwiki redirects to the conservapedia article, but this is still up? Also citing metapedia as a source for a claim that I am committing a criminal fraud? That is a violation of a whole host of wikipedia alphabet soup policies.

I would start to argue that there is enough "out there" to create a small but AFD survivable article on RationalWiki rather than a redirect. For example there is material such as this that is a valid source and gives relevant information. Can dig up more if some people want to actually create an article. I am wary of doing too much on my own because of aforementioned alphabetic soup policies. Regardless, I would appreciate (and will likely take action if no one visits the page in the next day or so) removal of metapedia at least as far as calling me out personally. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed rationalwiki. Rothorpe (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative to Conservapedia?

Is this statement accurate? It was certainly formed in response to CP, but I don't see it as an alternative. It almost makes it sound as if it's another conservative "encyclopedia", when it is neither. Should this be rephrased? -R. fiend (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I've changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot

Note that the screenshot would not need to be fair use - the RW content is CC-by-sa, the MediaWiki dressing is GPL - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know which the correct template to use there is. Would it be possible for you to update it? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Archive

We need to add an archive here.--88.104.136.143 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Red Jay (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

COI box

As I publicly stated multiple times, I've got ties with RationalWiki.

How, specifically, does my (or others') conflict of interest negatively affect this article? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

*cough* FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it does. Dandtiks69 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Recreating the article

I would like to recreate RationalWiki as an article rather than a redirect. My proposed page is here. (It is not fully complete, since neither of the two necessary photos are on Wikipedia.)
I believe that RationalWiki is notable, because it has been described in 5 different reliable sources independent of the site itself, albeit breifly, and has been cited in popular and academic sources.
I have a conflict of interest in that I am an editor of RationalWiki, as I state on my user page. I do not believe that my conflict of interst interferes with my proposed contributions to the RationalWiki article; if anyone believes otherwise, please state so and I will attempt to resolve any issues.
Thanks. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's definitely COI ... I'm still not really convinced RW is noteworthy, so we should wait until someone outside concurs - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is most certainly notable. Shabidoo | Talk 09:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, perhaps? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I would, but WP:RFD sez "Note: If you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold." FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Then be bold! Shabidoo | Talk 23:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have recreated the article. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't be surprised with the article deletion warriors pounce on it. Just be ready to give a good argument quoting policy why it's notable. Shabidoo | Talk 10:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the article has escaped the AFD warriors. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Again?

Has there been actual evidence of notability? (I speak as a RMF board member and the guy who runs a pile of the social media channels.) I wasn't aware of anything new - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right, this article is absolutely non-notable and about an obscure website.

115.118.252.32 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Citing RW's libertarianism page

As evidence of its anti-libertarianism seems sketch. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible sources?

I am about as The Guy From Rationalwiki as you could be, so I won't be touching the article or even opining very heavily here; but I thought RW's mentions page might be useful. Lots of blogs, a few newspapers, a fair bit of scholarly use of it as a reference - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of them are already cited. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I read this section while sleep deprived and was like...wait, when did I switch tabs to RW? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Liberal Bias claim

A common quote in this site (how do you call that reoccurring quote? Leitmotiv?) is that "reality has a liberal bias", from Colbert, and it tries to make a point that even though their pages are in fact snarky and sassy their pages are the reality of the subject and have no progressivist or liberal agenda or bias despite so-called conservatives saying so it is in fact biased if it doesn't fit their ideology (that's called denialism). Also, the site points out frequently on the fact of "quality over quantity" of a side of the argument, and that not all sides of an argument have equal weight. For example, in the environmental situation of acceptance the only two viable arguments are that data overwhelmingly supports climate change and the contra is that correlation doesn't equal casuation, but the arguments that science is anti-environmental and that the environment is against God are poor arguments for and against, respectively. I am trying to say we should include that and to eliminate the "progressivist view" classification of this site. This comes from both experience and newspaper sources. Thank you. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC).

I think it's pretty accurate to describe RW as liberally biased, even if RW attempts to prove that that liberal bias is justified, because the site is to the left of most readers, and because being right doesn't mean one isn't biased. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So its bias is actually relative to that of its readers? Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC).

That arguments against religion are valid, does not change the fact that Rationalwiki itself is a satirical wiki. It has a left bias just as the Conservapedia has a right bias. The Onion could have an article with the same valid arguments, but The Onion would still be The Onion. Having a valid argument on one topic does not therefore make every other argument you have regarding other topics valid as well. 2602:306:C4EF:2BA0:C596:F741:4608:C24E (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. RW is biased. That doesn't make it wrong, but the bias is undeniable. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not biased towards liberalism, it's liberal by design; but it's biased towards radical feminism, and that makes it not very liberal at all, and this should probably be mentioned on the page. -- 9peppe (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been reading it for some time. It's not always easy to discern among snarky point of view, extreme sarcasm, trolling, and outright political extremism. But, unless we use Enciclopaedia Dramatica as a source, all of that is original research... --9peppe (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(disclaimer I am a contributor to rationalwiki): It is undeniable that there is a progressivist bias on the site, that doesn't automatically mean there is a consensus in rationalwiki that articles should reflect radical feminism, socialist principles, political correctness or any extremism for that matter (much of this comes up on the reddit style "whats happening in the world" section rather than in the articles themselves). You can find text all over the site that is representative of radical feminism, PC etc. without a doubt...but the only bias, I believe, that the site (overwhelmingly) and clearly has is progressivism. --Shabidoo | Talk 01:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, if we're going to describe its politics, we need good secondary sources that cover it. We can only rely on rationalwiki itself for the most basic statement-of-purpose stuff in that regard, I think; anything more in-depth than that is going to require a high-quality secondary source. Whether its arguments are valid or invalid isn't the point; how it's described in secondary sources is the important part. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Part of the intro only cites RW itself:

[[Ideology|Ideologically]], RationalWiki typically argues in favour of [[freedom of religion]], [[atheism]], [[feminism]], and [[LGBT rights]], and it [[criticism|criticises]] [[conservatism]] and [[right-libertarianism]].<ref>Multiple authors. "[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion Freedom of religion]", "[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism Atheism]", "[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Feminism Feminism]", "[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LGBT_rights LGBT rights]", "[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservatism Conservatism]", "[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Libertarianism Libertarianism]", ''RationalWiki''.</ref> RationalWiki frequently uses [[sarcasm]] and [[humor]] in its articles. Unlike many wikis, RationalWiki has no formal system for electing sysops, and most users which are thought to have good intentions are given the tools.<ref>[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Sysop RationalWiki:Sysops]</ref>

Is this acceptable? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This section only got longer; I cut it. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The intro claim is utterly uncited

"skeptical, secular, feminist, and progressivist perspective." Even if these are arguably true, that's WP:OR. Surely this stuff needs citation before it can be claimed for the general reader to see in Wikipedia's voice. Else Wikipedia should not be making the claim - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC) (COI: heavily involved in RW/RMF)

For now, I've replaced the first sentence with a summary of the "mission and content" section (which has two secondary sources.) Beyond from the lack of sourcing for the old intro sentence, it didn't reflect the article, so it failed WP:LEAD. We could probably say more about RW's perspective (I think there are probably sources out there to call it skeptical and secular, at the very least), but I'm not sure it'd belong as the very first sentence in the lead anyway, and we'd need to elaborate on it in the main article first. --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

anti-Zionist bias

Rationalwiki has frequently been accused of anti-Zionist bias. For example they present the Israel-Apartheid analogy as if it were fact (notice how they devote more space to Israel smearing than the actual lemma). Their article on Zionism is one giant hit piece and anti-Israel bias crops up in the unlikeliest of places and abuse is routinely hurled at any (actual or alleged) Zionists... 95.90.213.16 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. What does this have to do with article improvements? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Unbalanced towards certain viewpoints

@Neve-selbert:, please explain. COI: RW editor, as noted on userpage. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Reading the comments above, I suspect the claimed lack of balance resides in RW, not this WP article. If no worthwhile discussion appears before, say, next Tuesday, I would favor removing the tag. Just plain Bill (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No discussion seen yet. It still appears that the tag is about an editor's or some editors' opinion of RW, or a complaint that this WP article is not negative enough. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I have removed the tag. Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

http://m.ripoffreport.com/reports/the-rationalwiki-foundation/albuquerque-new-mexico-87106/the-rationalwiki-foundation-rationalwiki-rational-wiki-rw-rationalwikiorg-rationalwi-1143383 RationalWiki is a prank site.77Mike77 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a great find, 77Mike77 . I've added a quote from it to the article.--Nevé–selbert 17:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source at all, it's WP:UGC. That quote was way, way too long, also. Grayfell (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It may not have been strictly reliable, but the points it made were patently accurate.--Nevé–selbert 19:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:VNT. Addition of content using ripoff report as a source is troutworthy. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 Self-trout Dammit.--Nevé–selbert 19:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/ 77Mike77 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added that to the article. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted; that's not a reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

That same source says that Wikipedia is unbiased, so you may have a point about it not being a "reliable source".77Mike77 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its faults, but RationalWiki is certainly on another level. They are no more "rational" than Fox News is "fair and balanced". Tripe, really.--Nevé–selbert 18:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I understood the comment to be concerned with whether or not www.mediabiasfactcheck.com is a "reliable source". Rationalwiki reads like it was copied from writing scrawled on a wall in a public toilet. My beef is that the gatekeepers hear are defending the authors who are misrepresenting Rationalwiki in a favourable light. Wikipedia is okay for articles about chemistry or pop stars, but is pure leftwing propaganda re anything connected to politics, hence their fawning over leftist sites, even the vulgar and unreliable ones.77Mike77 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Title of tab = "Talk". So not allowed to talk about improving an embarrassingly poor and shamelessly biased article? Fine, you wear it, not me.77Mike77 (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Why evolution is true additions

Here are the problems I have:

• Its a wordpress site, which means it has no editor.
• Its by a biologist, so he isn't exactly the best person to provide criticism about this subject.
• Its so nitpicky that it is almost hilarious that he got three articles out of it.

This really doesn't mean anything. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

My reply:

• Other sources already listed are also blogs, e.g. Less Wrong. RationalWiki is probably not that notable overall that many people comment on it.
• Proportionality: as a notable New Atheist author, he is as qualified to say something on the RationalWiki, which is a rationalist site that has relevance in new atheism. One sentence is certainly not too much weigth for a notable author with relevance in that particular area. It's proportionally acceptable.
• This is your opinion. Just like the other statements by other critics and commenters: Readers can come to the same conclusion as you do, or agree with his assessment. The Wikipedia should adhere to NPOV and don't judge either way.
• Jerry Coyne voices an opinion that fits perfectly into the NP:Weight category.

I have heeded your request and shortened the bit even more, to one sentence only. I believe you need excellent reasons why one sentence on a relative specialized subject should be omitted, when stated by a notable person. Jezrebel (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jezrebel: If this article is using unreliable sources elsewhere, we should work to remedy that problem, not compound it by adding more. Please discuss changes on this talk page before adding them to the main article—once you and the other editors on this page come to agreement here on the wording and sources, it can be added to the text. Continuing to add your version directly to the article text is becoming an edit war. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I still feel the idea of nitpickiness hasn't been addressed either. Its too much of a singular and fine detail about the wiki that its really of no value. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I already heeded the request given in the log and it's now down to one sentence. Zero Serenity is appararently heavily invested in the subject (see this talk page) and has suggested no compromise.

• Biased or opinionated sources asserts that "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. [...] Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." — Jerry Coyne meets this requirement easily.
• Even if one sentence was considered a weight issue, which I don't believe it is, WP:Weight asserts that prominent adherents would be acceptable sources. He is a prominent adherent in this case. He is a scientist, public speaker, contributor to many outlets, and his website is a rationalist website itself i.e. the same general area as the RationalWiki.
• Within the rationalist movement, the strong so-called Regressive Left tendency of the RationalWiki is well known and also readily apparent by simply reading its articles. Jerry Coyne is a very notable source that pinpoints this particular tendency. The particular case is not even far in the permitted "opinionated" realm, since the entire assertion can be fact checked directly and e.g. compared with wikipedia. What he asserts is obviously true. But this is not a tiny nitpick detail, but valuable information. Otherwise, readers have to check themselves whether e.g. Wikipedia articles are more throughout than those on the RationalWiki, and the RationalWiki itself is open about it's bias.
• The RationalWiki is generally an obscure, special interest site. That makes Jerry Coyne even more relevant. Proportionality. Also, one sentence.
• Other sources in the article are not my concern.

Official Wikipedia guidelines make this a clear case. Jezrebel (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jezrebel: You didn't heed the request. ZeroSerenity referred you to the bold, revert, discuss policy. You were bold, they reverted, but you never discussed your proposed additions—you just added them. You're using the "Biased or opinionated sources" section of WP:RS to argue that this blog post is acceptable, but note that that section states, "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" (emphasis mine). I have no issue with you using opinionated material to source articles (as long as it's done properly, as described there), but that material must at least be presented in reliable sources. I am unfamiliar with Coyne's viewpoints (and really with this entire topic area), but the onus is on you to show that this person's Wordpress site is a reliable source. If Coyne is indeed as prominent as you say, his viewpoints should be reflected in other sources that are not a personal blog.

Regarding this: Within the rationalist movement, the strong so-called Regressive Left tendency of the RationalWiki is well known and also readily apparent by simply reading its articles. Jerry Coyne is a very notable source that pinpoints this particular tendency. The particular case is not even far in the permitted "opinionated" realm, since the entire assertion can be fact checked directly and e.g. compared with wikipedia. What he asserts is obviously true. Unfortunately, that is original research. We cannot make statements in Wikipedia articles that we, as editors, find to be "obviously true," because that is our own opinion gleaned from our own personal analyses. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what people are saying above. This is the opinion of one random blogger; it both fails WP:RS and is grossly WP:UNDUE. We don't cover every blog-post someone makes about an article's subject. I would also argue that his political opinions are WP:FRINGE, since he seems to be describing the site with a lot of obscure angry-internet-person memes rather than political descriptors that have any mainstream acceptance. EDIT: Also, I removed LessWrong per the mention above; you're right, it really doesn't pass WP:RS or WP:UNDUE here, either. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:: "If Coyne is indeed as prominent as you say" for that matter, I provided you the link several times. You are supposed to click on it: Jerry Coyne. This is not some "random blogger" as others here claimed. Secondly, your point about original research is false, too. There is no "original research" involved whatsoever. After all, we discuss the ONE SENTENCE you are so adamant to keep off, not additional explanations that I added that give perspective and context. On the contrary, it is exactly as stated in WP:Weight. There are apparently opinions out there, and someone notable voices them, and that way, according to WP: Weight they can be included. That's the whole point of Jimmy Wales explanation there. Jezrebel (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jezrebel: I really have no opinion whether your suggested content is added to the article or not—I was just informed that this discussion needed an outside opinion. So given that you (and your links) state that Coyne is prominent, where is his viewpoint reflected in sources that are not a personal blog? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why Coyne can't be included. He's notable. Same for LessWrong. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS isn't keen on blog posts - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Why remove parts of the summary?

I'm asking. A few pieces of what RW does is perfectly fine to have in the lede. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Since then..." sentence just repeats the stuff in the opening sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Rationalwiki

WP:NOTFORUM Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 04:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not seem possible to edit as an IP or sign on (both IE and Google Chrome, several different routes) - there are claims that the material however harmless is dodgy and being blocked. 86.191.127.35 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Are you talking about the Wikipedia page, or RationalWiki itself? Rationalwiki is not run by the same group as Wikipedia, nor does it have the exact same rules as Wikipedia. If your talking about RationalWiki, I don't think they allow for IP editing, and accounts created for other projects would not normally exist on RationalWiki. The place to look for any further help would probably be Their help page. Beyond that, this talk page is a poor place for technical support. If you are talking about this Wikipedia article, you'll have to be more specific about the problem. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Rationalwiki itself (and claiming an inoffensive change - by any standards - as inappropriate) - which, until a few days ago did allow IP editing - and if one cannot set up an account the issues cannot be solved. Apart from 'Ganfyd and other specialist wikis' there is a case for allowing some IP participation on wikis 'for all the usual reasons' (including correcting minor typos). Mainly flagging up something that may be worth noting in the article if the problem persists for more than a few days. 86.191.125.187 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Okay, fair enough. Without a reliable source specifically explaining or commenting on this, it's probably WP:OR, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC) The "block" on anonymous editing seems to have been caused by a bug in an edit filter. IPs should be able to edit again.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Does work now - and another reason for flagging up glitches etc' on the WP talk page (whatever the body or website) is that 'persons from that organisation' may be keeping an eye on the WP article and talk page and so can deal with the issue. No further action required (until the next time it happens). 86.191.127.41 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No mention of the vulgarity?

Many articles in RW are juvenile rants, laced with expletives. Is that not worth mentioning? The quality control is absent, and the Talk sections empty. Must be very little traffic there.77Mike77 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for original research or complaints about other websites. If reliable sources mention any of this, bring them forth for discussion. Otherwise it doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No reliable source mentions RW at all, so why is there a Wikipedia article about it? Is it "original research" to note the fact that they constantly use vulgar expletives? Is it OR to note, without a citation, that iron bars do not float on water? What a joke.77Mike77 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This article has several reliable sources, including established newspapers and academic publishers, which specifically discuss the site. It could use more, of course, but that's a common enough problem. As for iron bars floating, see WP:BLUESKY. This isn't a BLUESKY situation, because vulgarity isn't necessarily noteworthy by itself. The article does already mention the "snarky point of view" used, and nobody is denying that the site can be vulgar, but we would need some reliable source to explain what that's significant or surprising. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

See RationalWiki's article on the Tone argument. IMO it is more complete and better written than the Wikipedia article on that topic. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I perfectly see where you're coming from, 77Mike77. I'm a right-of-centre kind of guy, and this is undoubtedly one of the most leftist wikis I have ever come across. I came across their "article" on Margaret Thatcher one day and I was taken aback by its sheer irrationality; the amount of socialist bias in that infinitely repugnant and farcical excuse for an article was absolute. Sure I understand why one may hesitate in judging their overall quality based on one article alone, but there should be no doubt whatsoever in that they are just as biased to the left as Conservapedia is biased to the right; that much is irrefutable. Their definition of "rational" is ideological, IMHO they are just as rational as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. I've tagged this article, accordingly.--Nevé–selbert 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It is generally annoying when ideolgues refer to themselves as "rational", with the implication that all who fail to share their bias are irrational. This WP article does not sufficiently note the radical leftist bias and gutter language of RW. The article defenders too often use the OR excuse for censoring obvious facts. One sees this constantly on Wikipedia.77Mike77 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's "obvious", find sources. This is original research, and dismissing it as an excuse is not a valid counterargument. Any claims that Rationalwiki is just as whatever as Conservapedia would need to be backed up by reliable sources, otherwise it absolutely is refutable. If you have sources supporting this bias, or explaining why "gutter language" is relevant, bring them forth, otherwise this isn't an actionable tag. Your personal position on the left-right spectrum is irrelevant. Rationalwiki's position on that spectrum is only relevant to the extent that it's documented by reliable sources. Leaving a tag like this doesn't actually provide any clear way to improve the article, and any complaints you have about the bias of Rationalwiki are not Wikipedia's problem. Lacking any sources supporting these complaints, I am removing the tag as non-productive. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's common sense that the site is leftist, why suggest otherwise? The Reception section as it reads presently is pretty hagiographic, and certainly fails WP:NPOV.--Nevé–selbert 21:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent this discussion. Being "leftist" does not make the section unbalanced. You keep saying "certain" and "no doubt whatsoever" but it's still just your opinion, not the standard used by Wikipedia. Pony-up the sources, or at least suggest an actionable change that needs to be made, otherwise this is still disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not attempting to misrepresent anything. The Conservapedia article gives that site a pretty damning verdict in its lede, yet there is nothing of the sort redressing the balance here. Maintaining a neutral POV is Wikipedia policy and it is the fundamental thing that makes Wikipedia such a great site open to anyone, no matter your political persuasion. Now, there are a number of sources casting aspersions on the site[1][2][3][4], yet because of WP:SPS those can easily be dismissed as unreliable. One might argue that, given how laughably unpopular they are in comparison to us, those who do have knowledge of the site (and have the brass neck to use it as a source) are mostly commentators indulging in confirmation bias, thus insulating the echo chamber they perpetuate. The Reception section is clearly one-sided. Per WP:NOCRIT, we should feel free in considering how to rectify the situation.--Nevé–selbert 17:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comparisons to Conservapedia are non-productive. They are not two sides of the same coin just because you say they are. That article (which may have it's own issues) has many more sources of a relatively high quality explaining the specific details of its poor reputation. You do not have any such sources for this article by your own admission. It would, indeed, take a brass neck to suggest using personal knowledge or blogs, so why are you doing it? The Alexa ranking of the site is irrelevant to this discussion; this isn't some silly territorial thing. WP:NOCRIT, specifically WP:CSECTION (which is an essay, not a policy), advises against including a criticism section when possible. Among other problems, they tend to foster exactly this kind of false balance by including weaker criticisms to balance out more anodyne content. It sounds to me like you're advocating doing exactly that. Including poorly sourced or unsourced criticisms of their "leftist" bias or potty-mouth is unacceptable per multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Speculating on how to fix this without any sources, and with the knowledge that such sources likely don't exist, is a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"RationalWiki" was devised as an antithesis to "Conservapedia", the creators themselves have admitted that much. Whether they are two sides of the same coin is debatable; there is indeed no definitive proof either way. I guess it depends on your objectivity. For the record, I am not a big fan of the latter site, but the one thing I can respect about them is that their content does exactly what it says on the tin. With respect to the former site, they claim to be rational and critical thinkers (when it concerns non-political issues, they may have a fair claim), yet in a way they are the perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect, unashamedly convinced of their reputation. In regards to sources, you are correct insofar as I do not have any such sources. It is likely that there would be critical commentary on the site if it were more popular, hence why I linked to the Alexa ranking. (I certainly wasn't attempting this.) The thing is, the whole argument over the Reception section is rather ironic: one cannot aim for equilibrium in terms of balancing sources, since they are all positive. Rather, I am merely acknowledging the lack of it and how misleading that could be for readers. It is beyond debate that not all responses to the site have been positive, indeed online they have been polarising and divisive. We should not whitewash the site as just a science-oriented Wikipedia spin-off. They are a lot more than that and deserve their due, and it is not outlandish at all to point out how dogmatic and indeed vulgar much of their content has become. There is a lot that this article doesn't cover but could, and that is what concerns me.--Nevé–selbert 22:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You've made your contempt for the site very clear, but I don't care about that. So what, exactly, are you proposing? I don't see anything you have suggested which is actionable. Just leaving the template up seems like a badge of shame. Of course not all responses have been positive. There's nothing remarkable or commendable about acknowledging the obvious, and we don't need to insult the intelligence of the reader by telegraphing the hypothetical existence of controversy about a website dedicated to politics/religion/scientific-skepticism. Wikipedia only concerns itself with responses in RS. If no reliable sources have been found, then there's nothing that can be done about this, and the banner will stay up forever. That's not improving the article at all, it's damaging it because some editors don't like that a set of opinions is not being included. There's no lack of opinions on the Internet, so we need more to work with, otherwise this is a dead end. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I just want to make sure both sides of the argument are heard, that's all. I have since reread the section and, although it was still skewed in a positive manner, I had totally missed the criticism (albeit rather short) from American Thinker up until now. 77Mike77 has linked to a report by Ripoff Report reprimanding the site, and I have added a Criticism section to the article. The tag you talk of has now been removed. I've added a {{examples needed}} tag to the section, as I was unsure whether to cite blogs.--Nevé–selbert 17:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What you just want is false balance. Wikipedia doesn't work with "both sides" because that assumes there are only two sides and that they are both proportional. Those assumptions are completey inappropriate. CSECTION specifically cautions against that kind of thing, you admit you hadn't bothered to read the section carefully, and you added a lengthy quote from a totally unreliable source just to pad-out a section. Are you even reading my responses on this talk page? Grayfell (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Look, this is all getting a little futile now. We ought to just replace the present tag with {{Expand section}} and call it a day.--Nevé–selbert 19:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Futile? You're the one who insists on adding tags without any clear way to remove them. You admit that there are no obvious candidates for reliable sources and no clear way to improve the article. You should either remove this tag, or explain how we could fix the issue, and then we can call it a day. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, futile. However, none of us are at fault here, for it is the site that is the problem. I have nothing more to say and I have removed the tag.--Nevé–selbert 19:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean this edit? That tag was actively encouraging the addition cherry-picked, non-neutral content, content which you don't even know exists. By placing it there, you are telling readers that such content likely does exist, and is important to understanding the article. You have not provided any basis for making that assumption, nor any basis for imposing that assumption on the article. That's worse than it was before. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I haven't reverted your edit, have I? So please drop the stick. I am done with this and I have made my point. Case closed.--Nevé–selbert 19:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I have fully removed the template. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm OK with replacing the {{Unbalanced section}} tag with {{Expand section}}, then calling it a day.--Nevé–selbert 20:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are, that's painfully obvious. I'm not okay with it for reasons I have been trying to explain in full detail. You're answer now seems to be that you're tired of talking about it, but that's not a valid reason. You still haven't proposed an actionable way to resolve this and remove the tag. You cannot find any sources at all which are usable, so how is this ever going to be removed? Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If you were to replace the expand tag with a hidden note, I might be OK with that.--Nevé–selbert 20:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: what hidden text do you propose be added? VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Something like <!-- Before adding any negative reception, please make you cite them with reliable sources. See [[WP:RS]] for further details.. I could live with something like that.--Nevé–selbert 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

All content needs to meet that requirement. What necessitates adding that hidden text to this specific portion of this specific article? VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess so we wouldn't have to repeat this discussion. Adding {{Round in circles}} to the top of this talkpage would be sensible also.--Nevé–selbert 19:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't. This talk page is only sporadically active, with typically less than one discussion a month. We already have the 'controversial' and 'not a forum' templates, another one isn't going to accomplish much beyond making the talk page even harder to read and even more intimidating to new editors. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well okay then. But a hidden note should still be added. I'd add it myself but I'd like to get assurances I won't be reverted.--Nevé–selbert 21:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any consensus to add it in the discussion above. VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added a hidden note, revert me if you have the hankering to do so, but in my defence it's relatively harmless and will help to avoid similar discussions like these rambling on into the future.--Nevé–selbert 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This page is not active or voluminous enough to need that. Good intentions and all, but I just removed it. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"It's harmless" is an inadequate reason. The instruction you propose adding applies to 100% of article space edits. VQuakr (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Just plain Bill and VQuakr: So, what do you propose we do now then? Something ought to be done.--Nevé–selbert 15:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: for the sake of clarity, can you briefly repeat the problem statement? VQuakr (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What ought to be done is either nothing (not broken, nor in need of fixing) or to persuade a consensus that there is in fact a problem, preferably with a specific remedy or remedies proposed. So far, I favor the former. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Quotes removed on 13 June 2017

COI notice: I'm a RW editor, moderator.

On 13 June 2017, two quotes were removed by @Rockandrollherold: (and later by @Grayfell:). These quotes are reproduced below:

---

In Intelligent Systems'2014, published by the IEEE, Alexander Shvets stated: "There are few online resources and periodical articles that provide some information about pseudoscientific theories. Such information helps non-experts to acquire the necessary knowledge to avoid being deceived. One of the online resources that can be distinguished is international resource "RationalWiki" that was created to organize and categorize knowledge about pseudoscientific theories, personalities, and organizations."

In Crowdsourced Knowledge: Peril and Promise for Complex Knowledge Systems, Mary Keeler et al. stated: "As W. Lippmann warned in 1955, 'When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute'. To help sort out the complexities there are sites like RationalWiki.org."

---

The reasoning @Rockandrollherold: provided was: "These reviews seem deliberately chosen to represent a particular viewpoint. Neither reviewer was of particular note, and the quotes were overwhelmingly positive."

I contest these points.

1. RE: Represent viewpoint: This is incorrect. As noted in the second AFD, relatively few scholarly/popular sources explicitly discuss RationalWiki (as opposed to citing it). Of those sources that do, most are overwhelmingly positive. (Violating WP:NOTFORUM, this is to their detriment: RW has major flaws that merit discussion.)
2. RE: Overwhelmingly positive: This is correct. However, a quote being positive is not inherently reason to remove it. See above.
3. RE: Not notable: This is correct. (Again violating WP:NOTFORUM, it's a shit move for scholars to name-drop some website without discussing it in depth.) However, as noted in the second AFD, several not-notable references can suggest notability. (COI again: I think RW is notable, as suggested by relatively high Alexa and frequent use on the web. That's obviously irrelevant.)

Additionally: The current article leaves the reader with the impression that RationalWiki is populated by vandals (LA Times), highly visible (Ballatore), sarcastic and vapid (American Thinker), and widely cited (use as citation). It seems odd to exclude the positive reactions, while retaining negative ones.

I'd like the quotes added back in. However, they could (should!) be shortened or reformatted. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being positive (or negative). They are, however, very flimsy as far as sources go. They are passing mentions in obscure works, and it would be better to remove them until they are shortened or reformatted to avoid undue weight. Article should not attempt to be comprehensive catalogs of every mention. I think the site is notable but If these sources are only here to demonstrate notability, it's basically damning with faint praise. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That definitely seems fair. I've attempted to shorten the quotes as follows:

In Intelligent Systems'2014, Alexander Shvets stated that RationalWiki is one of the few online resources that "provide some information about pseudoscientific theories" and notes that it attempts to "organize and categorize knowledge about pseudoscientific theories, personalities, and organizations." Similarly, Keeler et al. stated that sites like RationalWiki can help to "sort out the complexities" that arise when "distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people".

Thoughts? 01:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that works for me. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Added 'em in. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation for "moved its focus away from Conservapedia"

COI notice: I'm a RW editor, moderator.

This sentence features in the intro:

The website has since explicitly moved its focus away from Conservapedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Template:Cpmothball|title=Template:Cpmothball|date=4 June 2017|publisher=RationalWiki|access-date=21 June 2017}}</ref>

Does this fall under WP:SELFPUB? Said citation was added on 2 May 2017 by @Airbornemihir:. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. It meets all five criteria below:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Just plain Bill (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems fair. I was mostly concerned about WP:SELFPUB as it relates to WP:OR -- ie, is the article inferring something not explicitly stated in the source? Relatedly, this reference of rationalwiki.org seems to be pretty fitting WP:OR:

Following this mission, many RationalWiki articles mockingly describe beliefs that RationalWiki opposes, especially when covering topics like [[alternative medicine]] or [[fundamentalist Christian]] leaders.<ref name=ElReg /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Kristol|title=William Kristol – RationalWiki|website=rationalwiki.org|access-date=March 11, 2016}}</ref>

FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using primary sources to fill-in routine, non-controversial details. A user-page template seems like an odd choice, though. Briefly digging through the site, it seems like RationalWiki:History might be more informative. Using the William Kristol article as an example of mockery is WP:OR. That's not going to work at all, and I've removed it. "...beliefs that RationalWiki opposes" seems like loaded phrasing, also. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cpmothball is a Conspervapedia-namespace template -- check, eg, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Active_users FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, right, of course it is. I don't know why I thought otherwise. It does still seem like an unusual choice, however, as it's presenting this info removed from its usual context. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell and FuzzyCatPotato: If someone has a better citation for the revised focus of RationalWiki - please feel free to replace my citation. The first time I added this statement to the article, it was challenged (reverted, that is) - so I dived into the RW website and found the first kinda-sorta-citation I could find to support the general impression I'd received about RW's changed attitude about Conservapedia. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)