RationalWiki is as rational as skeptics wiki is skeptical: Not at all. I don't know what part of the human conditions lead to these things, but there is an important constant of life:
Whenever someone or something labels itself with a positive adjective, it never lives up to it and often is exactly the opposite.
Its position on one (admittedly contentious) subject was so far from rational and balanced that it drained the historic goodwill toward it I otherwise had.
One which is a philosophical issue, imo, but presented on RW as both scientific and fully settled such that dissenters are cast as both wrong-headed and morally bad.
That’s just not “rational” - and I’m surprised the site on that subject has abandoned a neutral point of view in favour of something practically Conservapedia-esque.
HNs asks that we avoid flamebait, so I’m not going to be specific - I just wanted to make the sincere point that RW does take stances that, to me, go against what I thought it’s spirit was.
I think that beating around the bush without being explicit about what you believe (which makes your position impossible to refute or even talk about in any meaningful way) makes for sterile discussion and is hardly better than flamebait. In line with the principle of charity you should state your position without assuming your detractors will be unable to keep their cool.
Having a RationalWiki page is pretty much like having a 'Controversies' section on your wiki page. Yeah maybe sometimes it's unjustified and a coordinated smearing attempt something something, but 99% of the time it means the person is shitty and said shitty things.
RW doesn't lie. All it does is sample quotes, which its detractors have accused of being 'out-of-context'. But this discussion is going to be useless if you don't bring up the specific person you think is being lied about on RW.
8 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 38.3 ms ] threadWhenever someone or something labels itself with a positive adjective, it never lives up to it and often is exactly the opposite.
That’s just not “rational” - and I’m surprised the site on that subject has abandoned a neutral point of view in favour of something practically Conservapedia-esque.
HNs asks that we avoid flamebait, so I’m not going to be specific - I just wanted to make the sincere point that RW does take stances that, to me, go against what I thought it’s spirit was.