4 ms·
I readily admit I haven't even read the content in this case. I am just attacking the source: most of the times I have read their content on a subject that I am
by JeremyBanks 10y ago
I readily admit I haven't even read the content in this case. I am just attacking the source: most of the times I have read their content on a subject that I am familiar with, it has been grossly misleading.
They definitely could be correct on this topic. I'm not familiar enough with it to say. However, I want to strongly encourage everybody to verify with other sources instead of lending this one even the credibility you'd give Wikipedia.
- notthemessiah 10y agoYeah, but RationalWiki isn't an encyclopedia and doesn't pretend to have the claims of objectivity that Wikipedia has, opting for a Snarky Point of View policy instead of a Neutral POV, and is consequently critical of ideas it believes has a pseudo-scientific vibe. It was born in response to Conservapedia, and in its mission statement it intends to "explore fundamentalism and authoritarianism", whereas NRx has a neo-fascist appeal. I picked that article because it seemed much more comprehensive than that of Wikipedia.