3 ms·

Every time I read 'rationalwiki' its just a bunch of personal drama about people the writers don't like. Never seen a single good article on there, it's just a

by graphe 3y ago

Every time I read 'rationalwiki' its just a bunch of personal drama about people the writers don't like. Never seen a single good article on there, it's just a bunch of circle jerking politics pretending to be a "rational wiki" like calling it the ministry of truth.

shadowfox 3y ago
I think I am confused by your comment in the context of Larry Sanger: are you suggesting that rationalwiki is incorrect and that Larry did not say any of the things quoted?
- graphe 3y ago
  Only thing I know is a group of limp wristed keyboard warriors hate some people write a wall of text and try to "rationalize" why. The facts don't matter, only the tone does and it's full of impotent anger.
  - Phileosopher 3y ago
    This is a natural product of how power works on the internet. Barring an algo that downgrades time spent, the people with the most power are proportionally the people who do the least things elsewhere. I was clued into this when the BLM protests happened. When I poked into all the names of the protesters I could find who were present on-site, very few of them had day jobs.
Kim_Bruning 3y ago
No love lost for sure: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Views_on_RationalWiki https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Views_on_Rational...
- graphe 3y ago
  He pretty much sums it up in one sentence. I don't care about Sanger or his politics. These writers have no lives, all they do is criticize things that don't matter. > Besides being the cofounder of one of the biggest websites on the Internet, he is mostly known for two things; criticising Wikipedia, and having created many failed WikiProjects to fix said criticisms. This writing is fine penmanship for a 2nd grader about why I hate Kevin and his Pokemon cards.
tyg13 3y ago
It's just a secular leftist response to Conservapedia that mostly focuses on debunking (mostly far-right) pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. I think you're taking the name a bit too literally and the concept a bit too seriously.
- graphe 3y ago
  Conservapedia and Wikipedia don't call themselves "rational" and the other guy took it seriously, not me. I know its just a bunch of whiny losers. What if conservapedia called itself the unbiased wiki and everyone quoted it?

by graphe 3y ago

shadowfox 3y ago

I think I am confused by your comment in the context of Larry Sanger: are you suggesting that rationalwiki is incorrect and that Larry did not say any of the things quoted?

graphe 3y ago
Only thing I know is a group of limp wristed keyboard warriors hate some people write a wall of text and try to "rationalize" why. The facts don't matter, only the tone does and it's full of impotent anger.
- Phileosopher 3y ago
  This is a natural product of how power works on the internet. Barring an algo that downgrades time spent, the people with the most power are proportionally the people who do the least things elsewhere. I was clued into this when the BLM protests happened. When I poked into all the names of the protesters I could find who were present on-site, very few of them had day jobs.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago

No love lost for sure: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Views_on_RationalWiki https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Views_on_Rational...

graphe 3y ago
He pretty much sums it up in one sentence. I don't care about Sanger or his politics. These writers have no lives, all they do is criticize things that don't matter. > Besides being the cofounder of one of the biggest websites on the Internet, he is mostly known for two things; criticising Wikipedia, and having created many failed WikiProjects to fix said criticisms. This writing is fine penmanship for a 2nd grader about why I hate Kevin and his Pokemon cards.

tyg13 3y ago

It's just a secular leftist response to Conservapedia that mostly focuses on debunking (mostly far-right) pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. I think you're taking the name a bit too literally and the concept a bit too seriously.

graphe 3y ago
Conservapedia and Wikipedia don't call themselves "rational" and the other guy took it seriously, not me. I know its just a bunch of whiny losers. What if conservapedia called itself the unbiased wiki and everyone quoted it?