What does Veeky Forums think of the Rational wiki?

Is "they" Conservapedia or Atheism+?

Both.

mostly nutjobs like /pol/ are butthurt about it because it deconstructs many of their conspiracies.

I don't think so.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro

>Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (1926—2016) was a Marxist leader and cigar aficionado. He was Prime Minister of Cuba from 1959 to 1976, and President from 1976 until his official resignation in February 2008, being Cuba's leader for almost 50 years.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

>Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (1915—2006), pronounced almost like "pee-no-shit"[note 1] in Spanish, was a murderous dictator and money launderer[1] who ruled Chile from 1973 until 1990.

ONe of the worst sites on the internet. Just look at the JFK assassination article to get a good glimpse of how bad it is. It starts out saying, "He was killed the way you heard about. No really." Doesn't even try to disprove a single one of the theories about it. Just self-entitled, obnoxious liberals on a site that thinks gives them credibility. It's not a real resource and everyone who uses it should feel bad.

It really doesn't though. All it is is "Hey we're right, there are no true conspiracies ever and if you disagree then you're stupid." It's a condescending pseud site and the people who write the articles hardly even try to debate.

Have you actually read the whole article? It isn't supportive of Castro at all.
Well conspiracyfags deserve to be mocked so at least they're about that.

[[[RationalWiki]]]

More important than ever before, but needs more editors.

The site gets vitriol from /pol/ crossboarders because it refutes their precious conspiracy theories.

They are as unbiased as metapedia

Leftyredditors made this thread

A wiki with an even greater secular liberal bias than wikipedia. Pretty unimpressive and mediocre. also like says it onlly exist because liberals sperged out over conservapedia.
>, considering how pseudoscience is slowly but steadily pushing its way to the masses.
You mean like Bill Nyes "gender fluid" garbage?

le strawman falllacy xD: the website

But just saying 'ur dum' and throwing in a bunch of cringeworthy buzzwords doesn't really convince anyone. I remember when I used to browse that site. Thabk fuck I grew up.

>sperged out over conservapedia.
Having read Conservapedia's abysmal article about evolution, I can understand that someone would like to offer a counterposition.

whether you like it or not it is very useful for my internet arguments

It's not really rational. Bourgeois liberals think whatever is rational is whatever conforms to their worldview.

Shit. It became more concerned with pushing a narritive then with being rational or intellectually honnest.

Castro never got to the level of sheer cruelty Pinochet did. Pinochet also embezzled 26 million dollars and hid it in offshore bank accounts.

castro was worth over 900 million when he died and he and his buddy Che initiated a reign of terror after they took over Cuba, summarily executing farmers for imagined crimes.

It's extremly white and based.

It's OK but I don't like how sarcastic it is.

That still doesn't change his name pronunciation to pee-no-shit
The website is a huge joke

sjw shit

Redditwiki

Horrible bias garbage

Still better than the "alt right" equivalent metapedia though, which out-right makes shit up like that Stalin's last name means "son of a jew" or that beria was jewish because "he has jewish features"

What's wrong with regular wikipedia anyway that we need alts? I think it's a nice website.

It's pretty good. Except for the parts on gender. And race. And history. And politics. And social science.

...yeah, just stick with Wikipedia.

>Stalin's last name means "son of a jew"
/pol/ here, but lmao.

Pseuds sometimes need the taste of their own medicine

The difference is that Pinochet killed a fuckton of people and his country today is prosperous. Castro and Che killed a fuckton of people and their country is a corrupt, decaying nation.

One of the best sites for combating dangerous ideas and ideologies.

lol Chile is a shithole like every South American nation.

lol, I'm american and I've read on some blog that south america is crap.

Good for you then.

>Castro was worth over 900 million
Source?

Leftist version of Conservapedia.

Its hilariously biased towards leftist ideals.

Wikipedia works out fine on its own even with its biases, its lot more down to reality than either of the two partisan wikis.

You can tell that there's an effort to not be biased but they more or less fail at that

It's 50% copy-pasted Wikipedia articles, 25% overly-condescending bad humor and 25% neoliberal pseudophilosophy.

Chile was prosperous already before Pinochet and one of south America's most stable democracies

>It's leftist
>It's neoliberal
So what is it

LITERALLY Fedora: the website

Used to be "le epic destroy the conservatives and young earth creationists" wiki and now it's "epic SJWs wrekt" wiki. It's completely pointless and superfluous.

>castro was worth over 900 million
source

And ended up here.

>The difference is that Pinochet killed a fuckton of people and his country today is prosperous
Except that's wrong.
Don't get me wrong, Chile is prosperous, by south american standards, it's just that he didn't kill a shitton of people.
In 18 years he killed 3000 people. That's peanuts.

His country is not prosperous because of him.

It's the same thing, the left nowadays is liberal progressivism.
Commies and socialists are functionally nonexistent.

Yes and no, really.

actually no

Debatable.

It's fucking trash. It managed to get way more pathetic and biased then Conservapedia, and that's quite the achievement. Seriously, probably the worst wiki around.

As if wikipedia wasn't obnoxious and biased enough shitlibs needed and even crazier more deranged alternative

Trash. Like everyone who contributes to that shit.

The current state of rationalwiki is basically the result of people thinking "hmmmm wikipedia doesn't have enough of a liberal bias".

conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity
>The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible.[note 1] Here is a list of 50 counterexamples: any one of them would show that the mathematical theory is incorrect:

I'm liberal as all fuck and I can't read RationalWiki because every time I read one of their articles I get the urge to punch whoever wrote it in the face. I really have no idea whether they're as rigorous about sourcing their material or whether their articles are full of bullshit, because I just can't cope with the self-satisfied "snarky" writing style they all use. Even the name of the site. Fucking fuck. I'm getting an ulcer.

It has great pages on pseudoscience but everything else is paranoid feminist garbage. It outright states that Kafkatrapping is a logical fallacy.

I made it to 22 and lost it completely:
>The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.[note 4]
>The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.
I don't know about the whole article, but I think at least some of those counterexamples are satire (hell, probably contributed by RationalWiki editors).

You really need to watch something other than Shitgon videos on jootoobe

kafkatrapping is a logical fallacy...

>Shitgon videos
Who?

>Reliable sources are secular and liberal biased

You must be the dumbest fuck here

Le ebin fat britih epic pwn le sjws uneducated slobbering bearded man

Your reading comprehension is quite bad.

user, I don't understand a single word you're saying.
Who the fuck is this shitgon, and why would he be wrong in saying commies and socialists are funcitonally nonexistent?

Beyond being more left leaning and written in the tone of buzzfeed articles, it offers nothing that wikipedia doesn't. It's just ideological garbage.

>A wiki with an even greater secular liberal bias than wikipedia.

And? Are you saying that wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias or that rationalwiki doesn't have a greater liberal bias?

Not him but they have more anti-"SJW" articles lately.

When people finally tell the tone troll to go away, it may accuse them of "kafkatrapping", a term coined by Eric S. Raymond,[3] which he defines as them using the refusal to recognize they're racist, sexist or what have you as evidence they're racist, sexist, what have you. Others find it to be being so mean as not to bother explaining to an idiot why they're an idiot in simple enough terms for the idiot to want to understand. Raymond explains "kafkatrapping tends to work best on weak and emotionally vulnerable personalities", which may clarify why he's so worried about it.

I just looked at the Stalin page and this is what I got

>Because of his later involvement with Marxian communism; some have speculated on Stalin having Jewish ancestry. In the 1930s, some in the Ukrainian diaspora[2] claimed that Jughashvili was Georgian for "son of a Jew". However, the name means roughly "son of steel", which makes sense that he chose Stalin (Russian for "steel") as a nickname. The Georgian word for Jew is not Jugha but Ebraeli or Uriya.[2] The claim that Stalin was Jewish is therefore false.

Nothing wrong with this desu

It's a joke website not an encyclopedia.

>Are you saying that wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bia
yes that is what I'm saying.
there are very clear NPOV and RS guide lines an dozens of other rules that are there to get objective articles.

show me the SJW bias with specific examples.
i'll wait.

I waste my time on it reading about logical fallacies. It's fun enough for that.

I meant that they think accusing someone of Kafkatrapping is a logical fallacy, like shows.

>25% overly-condescending bad humor
This. It's like the people behind it wants to be taken seriously in a bad attempt to be funny and edgy at the same time.

Not that guy, but honestly the wiki article on the Gamergate controversy is pretty one-sided. And I'm no fan of Gamergate - don't really give a shit about the journalism controversy and couldn't tell you the first thing about it, but the harassment shit was indefensible and vastly outweighs whatever merit the "movement" otherwise might have had. Regardless, having read the whole article, I don't really feel I've gotten a clear picture of what Gamergate was all about, and I'm suspicious that all the information has been presented fairly.

In general, though, I think Wikipedia does a pretty good job of maintaining a neutral point of view.

He's absolutely right though.

The only way any leftist movements gain traction nowadays is either by cults of personality (Corbyn) or by making concessions to nationalist parties, and even then one tends to fall into contradictory nonsense.

>Gamergate harassed women
Go back to Vox you massive pleb

Like I said, I was only peripherally aware of the whole controversy while it was happening, so I'm not an expert, but I don't see any way you can get away from the fact that yes, that happened.

there are close to 5.4 million articles on Wikipedia. I'm some will have a SJW tone or bias. I'm also sure some will have a /pol/ tone and bias. Some pages on famous people read like starstruck fanzines. WP is NOT perfect. But there is no overall or organized liberal secular bias.And anyone claiming otherwise needs to do more than show a few faulty pages.

Their main site lists these topics under "portals and articles". These are their treasured pages and they look totally innocent and neutral.

I don't get why so many people are accusing it of "liberal biases", whatever that means. I guess they mean stuff like tolerance towards homosexuality. Let's take a look at this then, for example:
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Open_mind
The topic would be perfect to twist it by inserting a promotion of tolerance for homosexuality or immigration, but there is none of that. It's fully focused on scientific methodology.

Of course, since the vast majority of posts bitching about it are just asserting these biases without giving any proof, I'm having a harder time than when they actually made some arguments.

I bet most of these people quoted haven't even read through the wiki more than a few paragraphs per articles from a 1 or 2 articles and are just regurgitating what someone else told them about that wiki, seeing as they all just make claims without giving evidence for them:

I don't disagree, hence my last sentence. Just giving one example of a prominent article (well, at least for the audience on this website ...) that shows bias.

I'm not trying to illustrate any overall trend, just making conversation.

i was a regular wikipedia editor and i saw it decline in real time. it started in 2014 with russia stuff, american media was "reliable" and russian media was not. continued with trump, syria, more russia. any article on recent events is extremely suspicious to me now. i've stopped editing entirely

"Rationality" and "Reason" are in themselves a liberal bias

...

>american media was "reliable" and russian media was not
sounds more right wing than liberal/SJW

> any article on recent events is extremely suspicious
Agreed. Hence the general warning above these articles. If it were up to me there would be a moratorium on current events (say 6 months), save for updating articles on real people.