RationalWiki

From Rotten Websites Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
RationalWiki
Rational Wiki logo.jpg
It's about as rational as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
Type of site: Wiki
Language: English, Russian and more
Created by: Volunteer contributors
Owner: RationalMedia Foundation
Date of launch: May 22, 2007
Status: Active


RationalWiki (RW for short) is a wiki whose stated aims are to "critique and challenge pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism and analyze how these subjects are handled in the media".

It was created in 2007 to counter Conservapedia after an incident in which Peter Lipson and several other contributors attempting to edit Conservapedia were banned. The website has since explicitly moved its focus away from Conservapedia.

Why It's Rotten

  1. RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia (even some of its own members admit that), it's instead a snarky blogging site pretending to be one.
    • Christopher Langan even described it as "a pseudointellectual tourist trap whose inhabitants are fiercely dedicated to the mockery and defamation of people and ideas to which its proprietor objects."
  2. Like their right-wing counterpart, Conservapedia, RationalWiki is extremely ideologically biased and can even sometimes exhibit regressive Democrat far-left traits.
  3. They label a lot of things as "alt-right", including sources that has criticized them such as Encyclopædia Dramatica and Kiwi Farms, despite the fact that these sites mock people of all polticial stripes.
  4. Many of their articles are simply irrational, one-sided rants.
    • A good example is the subject of UFO: Wikipedia offered a highly informative and well-sourced article, while RationalWiki made a page dedicated to the mockery of such belief.
  5. The people running and/or contributing to it do a terrible job at sourcing for their articles, many links included are either dead, image only, unarchived Twitter/Tumblr/Reddit posts that can be easily forged, deleted or modified, or heavily biased.
  6. Moreover, many huge claims are completely unsourced.
  7. Filled with logical fallacies, most notably argumentum ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the addressing the subject of debate) and name-calling. They even have categories like Insufferable Assholes, Batshit Crazy, and Pissed at us. Although some consider this excusable because these catagroies are included for the sake of sarcasm.
  8. They use the term "men's rights activist" very loosely to the point that people who have never identified as men's rights advocates are labeled with the term. Examples include Thunderf00t and Roosh V (the latter of whom is a vocal opponent of the men's rights movement).
  9. Ryulong, although they got sick of him eventually.[1]
  10. Despite being called "RationalWiki", its members act more like petulant jerks than rational individuals who mock people that call them out instead of defeating their arguments rationally.
    • Example: The Rebuttal to "It's almost as if Rationalwiki editors aren't rational at all..." is "'But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!' Drink!"
  11. Extremely pro-SJW. For more information, see more popular definitions of Social Justice Warriors.
    • Despite that, RationalWiki completely denies SJW infestation, as they audaciously claim "If there was a hostile takeover, we didn’t notice."
  12. Given their social justice leanings, they get offended over ridiculously little things (a good example being the "friendzone" term, which simply refers to disappointment in a crush not being mutual yet which is treated by RationalWiki as a display of male entitlement).
  13. On subject of antifeminism, they portray it as negatively as possible, dismissed any issue with third-wave feminism as actions of a handful of "bad apples" or exaggerated details instead of properly addressing them.
  14. A large chunk of the MRA article is dedicated to debunking MRA's claims (the page even opens up with a feminist quote), while there's no such section on the feminist article.
    • Many of these supposed debunkings are blatantly untrue. For instance, it claims that traditionalists, not feminists, are the ones who oppose father's rights, despite the fact that over the last several decades the most vocal opponent to father's rights has been the National Organization for Women. Additionally, they claim that circumcision is not a huge deal simply because female genital mutilation is worse (which 1. RationalWiki itself admits elsewhere is a logical fallacy and 2. does not take into account the less severe forms of FGM which are equally or less damaging than male circumcision, despite being illegal). While on the subject of circumcision, they insist that feminism has been fighting circumcision, with their "evidence" being that most countries which have considered circumcision bans have many feminists in them. This is equating correlation with causation, an infamous and highly irrational logical fallacy.
  15. They like to present readers with crudely made conclusions instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. This is more of an act of insecurity as they fear that people will not see things they way they do.
  16. Some of its members consider all Trump supporters to be Neo-Nazis and it should be moral to inflict violence on them.[2]
  17. They like to whitewash originally well-intentioned but nowadays corrupt and violent groups such as BLM and Antifa.
  18. Some of its members are extremely toxic and intolerant towards anyone who so much as disagrees with them.
    • Even so, they still pretend that they are welcoming to outsiders, claiming that they "only censor with love".
  19. They have absolutely no qualms in using racial or homophobic slurs.
  20. They endorse ludicrous social justice terms such as "mansplaining".
  21. They have a policy called "Snarky point of view", in which the articles generally are supposed to be written in the most snarky tone possible. This at times leads to a deterioration of quality and made articles more insulting than funny.
  22. Many of their articles are badly and lazily made, especially their N*ggermania page.
  23. According to them, charity is nothing but guilt reduction.
  24. They do not believe in races.
  25. They give credence to the idea that there's more than two genders.
  26. They aren't immune against their former or even becoming Democratic party members who become Green Party, Independent or even creating fringe Left-wing parties they think SMALL left-wing party to merge of corruptly flaw major party to win.
  27. On February 7, 2019, they somehow discovered the page covering them on Rotten Websites Wiki, retaliating by calling the users "basement dwellers". But thankfully, both RW and RWW made some arrangement on their discussion page.

Redeeming Qualities

  1. Its snarky style of writing can be humorous at times.
  2. It's more factual than Conservapedia.
  3. They are willing to admit that not all Democrats & leftists are good people (see their articles on Michael Moore & 8chan's /leftypol/). They likewise have an admiration for Trump-opposing Republicans like John McCain.
  4. They are against the anti-vaccination, flat-earther and other similar pseudo-scientific movements.
  5. They provide good rebuttals to Religious-Nut Jobs.

Read More

For more information on how far from rationality RationalWiki can get, please see their Gamergate articles (to their credit, Ryulong is the one behind most of them)[3].

Reference

  1. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/First_world_problems
  2. https://burrunjor.com/2017/06/28/why-i-hate-rational-wiki/
Wiki-related
Wikis: Conservapedia · Encyclopedia Dramatica · RationalWiki · SJWiki · TV Tropes · WikiHow
Wiki hosting sites: · Wikifoundry · FANDOM
Miscellaneous : Anonymous Users on Wikis · Edit warring · Vandals

Comments


avatar

Pinky Malinky

29 months ago
Score 16
PKMN's favorite website before he got banned.
avatar

Breakin' Benny

29 months ago
Score 14
Clearly, UglyRat went way too far and let it get to their head.
avatar

JaguarByte Productions

28 months ago
Score 14
PKMN is so bad , even his favorite website banned him.
avatar

Mar9122

25 months ago
Score -4
For some reason, I prefer RationalWiki than Wikipedia because it's easier to read.
avatar

Mar9122

23 months ago
Score -1
Or maybe Conservapedia is better? Who know cuz I don't know what political side I should take.
avatar

Dominicmgm

19 months ago
Score 0
Be neutral, that's what I do.
avatar

Jclem05

4 months ago
Score 0
Are you... Mar8122?
avatar

FridayMan

4 months ago
Score 0
Sorry but you are literally digging a grave
avatar

StarBird

11 days ago
Score 0
Prefer Conservapedia
avatar

AkihitoZero5454

23 months ago
Score 14
The wiki found us!
avatar

Mar9122

23 months ago
Score 6
I know and they're pissed at us.
avatar

Ramen scrbbbb

13 months ago
Score 3
what crybabies haha
avatar

Pinky Malinky

23 months ago
Score 4
YoU jUsT hArRaSsEd A rAtIoNaLwIkI eDiToR
avatar

Pacsonic9000

21 months ago
Score 1
Did Mar9122 discover a page on him on RationalWiki? I remember seeing a video on him reading a page on himself on that wiki.
avatar

Mar9122

21 months ago
Score 1
Who? What video?
avatar

Url8

18 months ago
Score 2

When I first found this website, I legitimately thought this was a joke website like Encyclopedia Dramatica! Turned out, it wasn't supposed to be one!

Maybe they should rename the site and "convert" it to a joke we site, theh don't need to do much to make it a joke site as I already thought it was one!
avatar

Echidamu

15 months ago
Score 4
Yeah, about that? Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't a joke website. They're actually serious about their harassment. They just call it "satire" as a form of damage control. Really, when an article is written against you, readers are almost 100% likely to try and find you on the internet on sites where you may be active or through the External Links section of your article to attack you (which is actually what External Links on their site are for). They claim that they don't support harassment, but behind the scenes, the staff will tell you how they really feel.
avatar

Echidamu

15 months ago
Score 1

"They label a lot of things as "alt-right", including sources that has criticized them such as Encyclopædia Dramatica and Kiwi Farms."

But those sites are Alt-Right. Especially Kiwi Farms, which is known for racism.
avatar

Reebok300

8 months ago
Score 0
The Kiwis don't have any political allegiances. I mean, hell, they have threads on Metokur & Sargon of Akkad, so they clearly go after anyone who makes a fool of themselves regularly online, regardless of political views.
avatar

Pacsonic9000

12 months ago
Score 1
I'll work on a page on websites discovering a page on themselves in my sandbox. I will publish it once at least 5 websites discover their pages. Not going to tell websites.
avatar

Reebok300

12 months ago
Score 2
Ah Rationalwiki. The Internet's Ivory Tower where they look down their noses at us lowly plebs & tell us that we're bigots for not agreeing with their pro-socjus agenda.
avatar

Drad

6 months ago
Score 3
lol rational wiki should be called liberal wiki as a centrist its very hypocritical and wrong
avatar

NintenDylan64

3 months ago
Score 0
I actually find this site good to browse, although I'm not trying to be defensive of this website.
avatar

Nonstopmaximum

2 months ago
Score -1
I like this Wiki, I edit on it every now and then
avatar

KalloFox34

2 months ago
Score -1
It's better than Conservapedia, which is an out-and-out rat's nest.
avatar

StarBird

11 days ago
Score 0
No it isn’t, conservapedia is way better and it isn’t an out and out rats nest.
avatar

Throwaway

16 days ago
Score 0
I'm sorry but this article loses all credibility when it sites men like fucking Christopher Langan. The man peddles insane conspiracies, so he's probably not a reliable source to base your opinion on.
avatar

StarBird

11 days ago
Score 0
It doesn’t lose any credibility because leftists are evil
avatar

StarBird

11 days ago
Score 0
Actually Conservipedia is more factual than a RationalWiki. That’s a fact.

You are not allowed to post comments.