Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:34, 14 August 2017

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about RationalWiki. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about RationalWiki at the Reference desk.

Websites: Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 2 February 2016, see discussion. keep, 24 March 2010 (UTC), see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. FuzzyCatPotato (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Problems with Rationalwiki

Does work now - and another reason for flagging up glitches etc' on the WP talk page (whatever the body or website) is that 'persons from that organisation' may be keeping an eye on the WP article and talk page and so can deal with the issue. No further action required (until the next time it happens). 86.191.127.41 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No mention of the vulgarity?

Many articles in RW are juvenile rants, laced with expletives. Is that not worth mentioning? The quality control is absent, and the Talk sections empty. Must be very little traffic there.77Mike77 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for original research or complaints about other websites. If reliable sources mention any of this, bring them forth for discussion. Otherwise it doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No reliable source mentions RW at all, so why is there a Misplaced Pages article about it? Is it "original research" to note the fact that they constantly use vulgar expletives? Is it OR to note, without a citation, that iron bars do not float on water? What a joke.77Mike77 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This article has several reliable sources, including established newspapers and academic publishers, which specifically discuss the site. It could use more, of course, but that's a common enough problem. As for iron bars floating, see WP:BLUESKY. This isn't a BLUESKY situation, because vulgarity isn't necessarily noteworthy by itself. The article does already mention the "snarky point of view" used, and nobody is denying that the site can be vulgar, but we would need some reliable source to explain what that's significant or surprising. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

See RationalWiki's article on the Tone argument. IMO it is more complete and better written than the Misplaced Pages article on that topic. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I perfectly see where you're coming from, 77Mike77. I'm a right-of-centre kind of guy, and this is undoubtedly one of the most leftist wikis I have ever come across. I came across their "article" on Margaret Thatcher one day and I was taken aback by its sheer irrationality; the amount of socialist bias in that infinitely repugnant and farcical excuse for an article was absolute. Sure I understand why one may hesitate in judging their overall quality based on one article alone, but there should be no doubt whatsoever in that they are just as biased to the left as Conservapedia is biased to the right; that much is irrefutable. Their definition of "rational" is ideological, IMHO they are just as rational as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. I've tagged this article, accordingly.--Nevé–selbert 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It is generally annoying when ideolgues refer to themselves as "rational", with the implication that all who fail to share their bias are irrational. This WP article does not sufficiently note the radical leftist bias and gutter language of RW. The article defenders too often use the OR excuse for censoring obvious facts. One sees this constantly on Misplaced Pages.77Mike77 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's "obvious", find sources. This is original research, and dismissing it as an excuse is not a valid counterargument. Any claims that Rationalwiki is just as whatever as Conservapedia would need to be backed up by reliable sources, otherwise it absolutely is refutable. If you have sources supporting this bias, or explaining why "gutter language" is relevant, bring them forth, otherwise this isn't an actionable tag. Your personal position on the left-right spectrum is irrelevant. Rationalwiki's position on that spectrum is only relevant to the extent that it's documented by reliable sources. Leaving a tag like this doesn't actually provide any clear way to improve the article, and any complaints you have about the bias of Rationalwiki are not Misplaced Pages's problem. Lacking any sources supporting these complaints, I am removing the tag as non-productive. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's common sense that the site is leftist, why suggest otherwise? The Reception section as it reads presently is pretty hagiographic, and certainly fails WP:NPOV.--Nevé–selbert 21:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent this discussion. Being "leftist" does not make the section unbalanced. You keep saying "certain" and "no doubt whatsoever" but it's still just your opinion, not the standard used by Misplaced Pages. Pony-up the sources, or at least suggest an actionable change that needs to be made, otherwise this is still disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not attempting to misrepresent anything. The Conservapedia article gives that site a pretty damning verdict in its lede, yet there is nothing of the sort redressing the balance here. Maintaining a neutral POV is Misplaced Pages policy and it is the fundamental thing that makes Misplaced Pages such a great site open to anyone, no matter your political persuasion. Now, there are a number of sources casting aspersions on the site, yet because of WP:SPS those can easily be dismissed as unreliable. One might argue that, given how laughably unpopular they are in comparison to us, those who do have knowledge of the site (and have the brass neck to use it as a source) are mostly commentators indulging in confirmation bias, thus insulating the echo chamber they perpetuate. The Reception section is clearly one-sided. Per WP:NOCRIT, we should feel free in considering how to rectify the situation.--Nevé–selbert 17:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comparisons to Conservapedia are non-productive. They are not two sides of the same coin just because you say they are. That article (which may have it's own issues) has many more sources of a relatively high quality explaining the specific details of its poor reputation. You do not have any such sources for this article by your own admission. It would, indeed, take a brass neck to suggest using personal knowledge or blogs, so why are you doing it? The Alexa ranking of the site is irrelevant to this discussion; this isn't some silly territorial thing. WP:NOCRIT, specifically WP:CSECTION (which is an essay, not a policy), advises against including a criticism section when possible. Among other problems, they tend to foster exactly this kind of false balance by including weaker criticisms to balance out more anodyne content. It sounds to me like you're advocating doing exactly that. Including poorly sourced or unsourced criticisms of their "leftist" bias or potty-mouth is unacceptable per multiple Misplaced Pages guidelines. Speculating on how to fix this without any sources, and with the knowledge that such sources likely don't exist, is a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"RationalWiki" was devised as an antithesis to "Conservapedia", the creators themselves have admitted that much. Whether they are two sides of the same coin is debatable; there is indeed no definitive proof either way. I guess it depends on your objectivity. For the record, I am not a big fan of the latter site, but the one thing I can respect about them is that their content does exactly what it says on the tin. With respect to the former site, they claim to be rational and critical thinkers (when it concerns non-political issues, they may have a fair claim), yet in a way they are the perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect, unashamedly convinced of their reputation. In regards to sources, you are correct insofar as I do not have any such sources. It is likely that there would be critical commentary on the site if it were more popular, hence why I linked to the Alexa ranking. (I certainly wasn't attempting this.) The thing is, the whole argument over the Reception section is rather ironic: one cannot aim for equilibrium in terms of balancing sources, since they are all positive. Rather, I am merely acknowledging the lack of it and how misleading that could be for readers. It is beyond debate that not all responses to the site have been positive, indeed online they have been polarising and divisive. We should not whitewash the site as just a science-oriented Misplaced Pages spin-off. They are a lot more than that and deserve their due, and it is not outlandish at all to point out how dogmatic and indeed vulgar much of their content has become. There is a lot that this article doesn't cover but could, and that is what concerns me.--Nevé–selbert 22:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You've made your contempt for the site very clear, but I don't care about that. So what, exactly, are you proposing? I don't see anything you have suggested which is actionable. Just leaving the template up seems like a badge of shame. Of course not all responses have been positive. There's nothing remarkable or commendable about acknowledging the obvious, and we don't need to insult the intelligence of the reader by telegraphing the hypothetical existence of controversy about a website dedicated to politics/religion/scientific-skepticism. Misplaced Pages only concerns itself with responses in RS. If no reliable sources have been found, then there's nothing that can be done about this, and the banner will stay up forever. That's not improving the article at all, it's damaging it because some editors don't like that a set of opinions is not being included. There's no lack of opinions on the Internet, so we need more to work with, otherwise this is a dead end. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I just want to make sure both sides of the argument are heard, that's all. I have since reread the section and, although it was still skewed in a positive manner, I had totally missed the criticism (albeit rather short) from American Thinker up until now. 77Mike77 has linked to a report by Ripoff Report reprimanding the site, and I have added a Criticism section to the article. The tag you talk of has now been removed. I've added a {{examples needed}} tag to the section, as I was unsure whether to cite blogs.--Nevé–selbert 17:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What you just want is false balance. Misplaced Pages doesn't work with "both sides" because that assumes there are only two sides and that they are both proportional. Those assumptions are completey inappropriate. CSECTION specifically cautions against that kind of thing, you admit you hadn't bothered to read the section carefully, and you added a lengthy quote from a totally unreliable source just to pad-out a section. Are you even reading my responses on this talk page? Grayfell (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Look, this is all getting a little futile now. We ought to just replace the present tag with {{Expand section}} and call it a day.--Nevé–selbert 19:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Futile? You're the one who insists on adding tags without any clear way to remove them. You admit that there are no obvious candidates for reliable sources and no clear way to improve the article. You should either remove this tag, or explain how we could fix the issue, and then we can call it a day. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, futile. However, none of us are at fault here, for it is the site that is the problem. I have nothing more to say and I have removed the tag.--Nevé–selbert 19:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean this edit? That tag was actively encouraging the addition cherry-picked, non-neutral content, content which you don't even know exists. By placing it there, you are telling readers that such content likely does exist, and is important to understanding the article. You have not provided any basis for making that assumption, nor any basis for imposing that assumption on the article. That's worse than it was before. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I haven't reverted your edit, have I? So please drop the stick. I am done with this and I have made my point. Case closed.--Nevé–selbert 19:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I have fully removed the template. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm OK with replacing the {{Unbalanced section}} tag with {{Expand section}}, then calling it a day.--Nevé–selbert 20:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are, that's painfully obvious. I'm not okay with it for reasons I have been trying to explain in full detail. You're answer now seems to be that you're tired of talking about it, but that's not a valid reason. You still haven't proposed an actionable way to resolve this and remove the tag. You cannot find any sources at all which are usable, so how is this ever going to be removed? Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If you were to replace the expand tag with a hidden note, I might be OK with that.--Nevé–selbert 20:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: what hidden text do you propose be added? VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Something like <!-- Before adding any negative reception, please make you cite them with reliable sources. See ] for further details.. I could live with something like that.--Nevé–selbert 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

All content needs to meet that requirement. What necessitates adding that hidden text to this specific portion of this specific article? VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess so we wouldn't have to repeat this discussion. Adding {{Round in circles}} to the top of this talkpage would be sensible also.--Nevé–selbert 19:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't. This talk page is only sporadically active, with typically less than one discussion a month. We already have the 'controversial' and 'not a forum' templates, another one isn't going to accomplish much beyond making the talk page even harder to read and even more intimidating to new editors. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well okay then. But a hidden note should still be added. I'd add it myself but I'd like to get assurances I won't be reverted.--Nevé–selbert 21:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any consensus to add it in the discussion above. VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added a hidden note, revert me if you have the hankering to do so, but in my defence it's relatively harmless and will help to avoid similar discussions like these rambling on into the future.--Nevé–selbert 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This page is not active or voluminous enough to need that. Good intentions and all, but I just removed it. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"It's harmless" is an inadequate reason. The instruction you propose adding applies to 100% of article space edits. VQuakr (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Just plain Bill and VQuakr: So, what do you propose we do now then? Something ought to be done.--Nevé–selbert 15:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: for the sake of clarity, can you briefly repeat the problem statement? VQuakr (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What ought to be done is either nothing (not broken, nor in need of fixing) or to persuade a consensus that there is in fact a problem, preferably with a specific remedy or remedies proposed. So far, I favor the former. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation for "moved its focus away from Conservapedia"

COI notice: I'm a RW editor, moderator.

This sentence features in the intro:

The website has since explicitly moved its focus away from Conservapedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rationalwiki.org/Template:Cpmothball|title=Template:Cpmothball|date=4 June 2017|publisher=RationalWiki|access-date=21 June 2017}}</ref>

Does this fall under WP:SELFPUB? Said citation was added on 2 May 2017 by @Airbornemihir:. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. It meets all five criteria below:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Just plain Bill (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems fair. I was mostly concerned about WP:SELFPUB as it relates to WP:OR -- ie, is the article inferring something not explicitly stated in the source? Relatedly, this reference of rationalwiki.org seems to be pretty fitting WP:OR:

Following this mission, many RationalWiki articles mockingly describe beliefs that RationalWiki opposes, especially when covering topics like ] or ] leaders.<ref name=ElReg /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://rationalwiki.org/William_Kristol|title=William Kristol – RationalWiki|website=rationalwiki.org|access-date=March 11, 2016}}</ref>

FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using primary sources to fill-in routine, non-controversial details. A user-page template seems like an odd choice, though. Briefly digging through the site, it seems like RationalWiki:History might be more informative. Using the William Kristol article as an example of mockery is WP:OR. That's not going to work at all, and I've removed it. "...beliefs that RationalWiki opposes" seems like loaded phrasing, also. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cpmothball is a Conspervapedia-namespace template -- check, eg, http://rationalwiki.org/Conservapedia:Active_users FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, right, of course it is. I don't know why I thought otherwise. It does still seem like an unusual choice, however, as it's presenting this info removed from its usual context. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell and FuzzyCatPotato: If someone has a better citation for the revised focus of RationalWiki - please feel free to replace my citation. The first time I added this statement to the article, it was challenged (reverted, that is) - so I dived into the RW website and found the first kinda-sorta-citation I could find to support the general impression I'd received about RW's changed attitude about Conservapedia. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Quotes removed on 13 June 2017

COI notice: I'm a RW editor, moderator.

On 13 June 2017, two quotes were removed by @Rockandrollherold: (and later by @Grayfell:). These quotes are reproduced below:

In Intelligent Systems'2014, published by the IEEE, Alexander Shvets stated: "There are few online resources and periodical articles that provide some information about pseudoscientific theories. Such information helps non-experts to acquire the necessary knowledge to avoid being deceived. One of the online resources that can be distinguished is international resource "RationalWiki" that was created to organize and categorize knowledge about pseudoscientific theories, personalities, and organizations."

In Crowdsourced Knowledge: Peril and Promise for Complex Knowledge Systems, Mary Keeler et al. stated: "As W. Lippmann warned in 1955, 'When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute'. To help sort out the complexities there are sites like RationalWiki.org."

1. Shvets, Alexander (October 2, 2014). Filev, D.; Jabłkowski, J.; Kacprzyk, J.; et al. (eds.). Intelligent Systems'2014: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference Intelligent Systems IS’2014, September 24–26, 2014, Warsaw, Poland, Volume 2: Tools, Architectures, Systems, Applications. Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 323. Springer Publishing. A Method of Automatic Detection of Pseudoscientific Publications, page 533 et seq. ISBN 978-3-319-11310-4.
2. Keeler, Mary; Johnson, Josh; Majumdar, Arun. "Crowdsourced Knowledge: Peril and Promise for Complex Knowledge Systems" (PDF). p. 4. Retrieved January 17, 2015.

The reasoning @Rockandrollherold: provided was: "These reviews seem deliberately chosen to represent a particular viewpoint. Neither reviewer was of particular note, and the quotes were overwhelmingly positive."

I contest these points.

1. RE: Represent viewpoint: This is incorrect. As noted in the second AFD, relatively few scholarly/popular sources explicitly discuss RationalWiki (as opposed to citing it). Of those sources that do, most are overwhelmingly positive. (Violating WP:NOTFORUM, this is to their detriment: RW has major flaws that merit discussion.)
2. RE: Overwhelmingly positive: This is correct. However, a quote being positive is not inherently reason to remove it. See above.
3. RE: Not notable: This is correct. (Again violating WP:NOTFORUM, it's a shit move for scholars to name-drop some website without discussing it in depth.) However, as noted in the second AFD, several not-notable references can suggest notability. (COI again: I think RW is notable, as suggested by relatively high Alexa and frequent use on the web. That's obviously irrelevant.)

Additionally: The current article leaves the reader with the impression that RationalWiki is populated by vandals (LA Times), highly visible (Ballatore), sarcastic and vapid (American Thinker), and widely cited (use as citation). It seems odd to exclude the positive reactions, while retaining negative ones.

I'd like the quotes added back in. However, they could (should!) be shortened or reformatted. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being positive (or negative). They are, however, very flimsy as far as sources go. They are passing mentions in obscure works, and it would be better to remove them until they are shortened or reformatted to avoid undue weight. Article should not attempt to be comprehensive catalogs of every mention. I think the site is notable but If these sources are only here to demonstrate notability, it's basically damning with faint praise. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That definitely seems fair. I've attempted to shorten the quotes as follows:

In Intelligent Systems'2014, Alexander Shvets stated that RationalWiki is one of the few online resources that "provide some information about pseudoscientific theories" and notes that it attempts to "organize and categorize knowledge about pseudoscientific theories, personalities, and organizations." Similarly, Keeler et al. stated that sites like RationalWiki can help to "sort out the complexities" that arise when "distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people".

1. Shvets, Alexander (October 2, 2014). Filev, D.; Jabłkowski, J.; Kacprzyk, J.; et al. (eds.). Intelligent Systems'2014: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference Intelligent Systems IS’2014, September 24–26, 2014, Warsaw, Poland, Volume 2: Tools, Architectures, Systems, Applications. Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 323. Springer Publishing. A Method of Automatic Detection of Pseudoscientific Publications, page 533 et seq. ISBN 978-3-319-11310-4.
2. Keeler, Mary; Johnson, Josh; Majumdar, Arun. "Crowdsourced Knowledge: Peril and Promise for Complex Knowledge Systems" (PDF). p. 4. Retrieved January 17, 2015.

Thoughts? 01:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that works for me. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Added 'em in. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality possibly hindered by COI editors

I tagged this article because numerous editors and officials from Rational-Wiki have contributed to it, and our article largely looks like something Rational-Wiki and its contributors would themselves publish. It is quite probable that the contributors have the best of intentions, but sometimes it is easy to skew one's writing when one is writing about something he or she is deeply connected with. Aside from sour grapes from people Rational-Wiki has criticized, there is not much criticism, and part of the problem is that the notability of the subject is questionable as it is since virtually all coverage in reliable sources have been trivial. In contrast, there is vast coverage in unreliable sources, many of which portray Rational-Wiki negatively, pointing out the site's bias and its inferior standards of inclusion compared to Misplaced Pages. The last AfD was heavily weighted by people with declared conflicts of interest too. I think this article could benefit from some outside attention. PCHS-NJROTC 04:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that about what you think needs to be done. The WP:CSECTION thing has already been discussed, and requests for reliable sources to build such a section on remain unanswered. There's nothing actionable about this tag, making it seem like a badge of shame. What needs to happen for this tag to be removed? Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It's indeed unfortunate that few reliable sources analyze RationalWiki in depth. If you'd like, there's some recent trivial criticism: the Boston Globe calls RW the "the frothing liberal response wiki" to Conservapedia (and cites Encyclopedia Dramatica); Cato blog defends the gold standard against RW's criticisms; The Federalist complains that RW doesn't accept the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory; and a VG.no submitter complains that RW is biased against anti-Islamists.

Feel free to add any of these incredibly, incredibly reliable sources into the article. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If RW editors frequently edit this Misplaced Pages article, we could add a tag to this article's talk page noting which editors do so for transparency. This would be similar to the tag on articles such as on Talk:Bob Jones University. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It's actually just me. Added to top. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it just seems like "numerous editors from RW" to PCHS because numerous editors are not irrational. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Do not engage in personal attacks against other editors. While FuzzyCatPotato is probably the most frequent RW editor who edits this article, he is not the only RW editor I recognize when looking at the page history. Also, PCHS-NJROTC was also referring to page content in addition to editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you just name one of those "numerous" RW editors (with evidence that they are indeed RW editors) instead of darkly hinting at their existence? That would have been the rational thing to do if what you two claim is true, and there would be no way to contradict it without looking stupid.

The difference in behaviour between reasonable editors and others stands out so much... --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, rather than suggesting a malign influence is at work, it would be better to produce one or two diffs showing problematic changes to the article, with an explantion about why the diffs are problematic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is don't make personal attacks against other editors, even if you happen to be more "rational" than the other editor. WP:PERSONAL applies regardless of your rationality or intelligence compared to other editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:PERSONAL#What is considered to be a personal attack? and get off my back. It is perfectly fine to hint at the irrationality of PCHS's behavior after other users have already established that his accusations are neither based in fact nor do they have a clear rule-based purpose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL#What is considered to be a personal attack? makes very clear that what you're doing is making personal attacks against PCHS-NJROTC. See the first bullet point in the section, along with the fifth: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." You are calling PCHS-NJROTC "irrational", and you need to get off his back. You are contributing nothing substantial to this discussion. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where Hob Gadling said any individual was being irrational. It might be time to WP:DTS about the supposed NPA issue here; it also seems like there is enough COI for everyone who wants some to have a big ration of it. Please propose specific changes, or move along. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You say "You are contributing nothing substantial to this discussion". So, you think that asking questions like "Why don't you just name one of those "numerous" RW editors" does not help? Letter salad user has not contributed to the improvement of the article, he has just made baseless accusations of multiple COI. I asked for a base, he did not provide it. And you try to prevent me from asking such inconvenient questions that call his bluff. Just stop whining about non-existent personal attacks and return to improving the article, ok? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you can ask the questions, but writing things like "Maybe it just seems like 'numerous editors from RW' to PCHS because numerous editors are not irrational" or "The difference in behaviour between reasonable editors and others stands out so much" or (@Just plain Bill: this is the most blatant violation, IMO, and "hinting" is still a violation) "It is perfectly fine to hint at the irrationality of PCHS's behavior" is simply unnecessary and hurts much more than helps. If it weren't for your inflammatory comments and attacks, I might actually be inclined to take your side after reading your arguments. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Effective attacks tend to be robust and unmistakable. If you go looking for hints, there is no telling where you may think you find them. IMO it is quite a stretch to call anything in this thread "inflammatory." Consider how your involvement in Conservapedia affects your own view here, and consider whether putting a tenuous cloak of victimhood on the JROTC fellow furthers your case or damages your credibility.

Back on topic: please show specific instances, preferably in the form of diffs, of how editors' COI has degraded the accuracy of the article, or revealed particular editors to be hitherto undisclosed minions of RW. Better still, please offer concrete suggestions for improving the article, or collapse this section as unproductive forum-like wrangling. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We apparently interpret Hob's comments differently -- to me, they clearly are inflammatory at least and personal attacks at worst. I have seen him make other inflammatory and unnecessary talk page edits in the past, and I will pull up the diffs if you wish.

I keep my work here and on CP completely separate, and I take care to follow NPOV when editing. I have been editing this site much longer and have more edits than CP. I don't think my involvement on CP is a problem here, considering that FCP agreed with my suggestion to add a tag on the talk page. I don't care very strongly, however, about other potential COI issues on this article.

Regarding "concrete suggestions for improving the article," I do strongly recommend adding the criticism info that FCP suggested above. Most, at least, of the linked organizations criticizing RW, such as Cato and The Federalist, are noteworthy. I will add that info when I get more time soon unless someone else does it first. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"I might actually be inclined to take your side" - I do not want people on my side who go on unnecessary tangents by blowing single sentences on Talk pages out of proportion, I want people who know how to argue in a sensible way. I will ignore your red herrings from now on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"...blowing single sentences on Talk pages out of proportion" -- your entire original comment was a single sentence with no other apparent purpose; no wonder I noticed it. I wasn't arguing; I was asking you to adhere to WP:PERSONAL. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So, User:PCHS-NJROTC, did you find the "numerous editors" you mentioned? We are waiting. If you did not, can we close this thread? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't be silly. In addition to User:FuzzyCatPotato, at least User:Koidevelopment, User:David Gerard, User:JorisEnter, User:Zero Serenity, User:SuperHamster, and User:Nx have been involved in the development of this article, as can easily be seen on the history page. Most (if not all) of those people are administrators at Rational-Wiki, and David Gerard is a trustee like FCP. Any more questions? PCHS-NJROTC 23:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

For interested readers, these are the editcounts per user:

User:Koidevelopment: 1

User:David Gerard: 1

User:JorisEnter: 8

User:Zero Serenity: 12

User:SuperHamster: 2

User:Nx: 4

User:FuzzyCatPotato: 40

This represents 13.3% of all 496 edits. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In response to User:PCHS-NJROTC, virtually everyone is an "administrator". See here. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Also in response to PCHS-NJROTC, these are just the editors that have the same user names on both sites. I suspect several more edit this article using different user names, although I cannot confirm this. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

FCP: That sysop policy does not negate the fact that at COI exists, especially when most of those editors considwr their involvement at R-W to be significant enough to mention it on their user pages here, and edit counts don't necessarily mean much when one edit could contribute the majority of the content while 100 people may make minor edits (including to vandalize and undo vandalism) or edits that remove content. To be blunt, this conversation has reached a point that I have lost interest, so I'm not going to spend time reviewing all of the edits to determine who wrote most of the content.

1990s: I'm sure some of the other editors have ties to R-W, but we have no way to verify it. There are enough obviously R-W affiliated contributors to prove the point without strawman arguments. PCHS-NJROTC 03:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oooh, conspiracy theory. The secret COI one cannot know. Great argument, helps your case a lot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally. Thank you. Please note that it was your job, as a claimant, to show evidence, and not mine. Until today, I had no idea who those people are, and to identify them would have been unnecessary work for me because you had obviously already done at least part of that work before you wrote about "numerous editors". So, "don't be silly" was uncalled for. No matter.

Yes, those people should have declared COI.

But I looked at the edits by those who did not have many edits:

• Koidevelopment:
• David Gerard:
• SuperHamster:
• Nx:

All of those, except one, are either harmless link fixes, neutral categorizations ("Category:MediaWiki websites"), turning the whole article into a redirect because of lack of notability, addition of the template "may not meet Misplaced Pages's notability guideline for web content", removal of content not covered by independent sources, and one revert by SuperHamster of an IP edit introducting unsourced POV.

The one edit that adds content is an update of existing content.

So, they seem to be pretty tame. I would even call them exemplary users, based on those edits. I did not look at the edits by JorisEnter and Zero Serenity though. After finding no problems in the first eight edits, I am not inclined to continue, and I will just ask: Are there any problematic edits ("hindering neutrality") by FuzzyCatPotato, JorisEnter or Zero Serenity, or is this just a storm in a teapot? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, we are back to my comment at 07:13, 11 August 2017 above: ...produce one or two diffs showing problematic changes to the article.... I see nothing in this section other than people expressing indignation about an unspecified problem. Some other website should be used for that because Misplaced Pages is not a forum, and per the talk page guidelines, article talk pages should be used to discuss improvements to text in the article. It would be fine to identify problems in the article, but that means quoting text and providing an explanation of why it is a problem. Use WP:ANI to report problematic behavior by an editor, or use the editor's talk page to explain why their behavior is unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Three sources added

COI: RW editor, boardmember.

I have added three sources criticizing RationalWiki. I'm pleased to see more criticism of RationalWiki in reliable sources. Hopefully this resolves COI/NPOV concerns. Please adjust the language as necessary. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I commend FCP for making a good faith effort to create a more neutral article on this topic. PCHS-NJROTC 22:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Start-Class Websites articles
• Low-importance Websites articles
• Start-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• Articles with connected contributors