Infected RationalWiki - Whiny hugbox for spergs and a clusterfuck of neverending drama on a rapidly declining website.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
AnOminous said:
Hate to say it but sometimes the RatWiki is actually better than the Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

True, if the topic you want information on is something like a particular creationist/altmed wacko (RatWiki has better biographies and can be funny to read on them), or certain creationist/altmed concepts, since RatWiki compiles all the information in one place (Conservapedia has decent creationism articles too but for obvious reasons have their own problems) and Wikipedia's articles on some of that is often lacking.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: nanny911, Large, AnOminous and 4 others
Save the Loli said:
True, if the topic you want information on is something like a particular creationist/altmed wacko (RatWiki has better biographies and can be funny to read on them), or certain creationist/altmed concepts, since RatWiki compiles all the information in one place (Conservapedia has decent creationism articles too but for obvious reasons have their own problems) and Wikipedia's articles on some of that is often lacking.
Click to expand...

While I find it hard to disagree, there is something that is both a minus and a plus.

While RW occasionally has better information, the SJW articles are still pretty bad, but in one sense, they are better than Wikipedia because their bias is pretty up front as opposed to that mealy mouthed roundabout positive style where they LARP as being neutral when they really aren't.

Wikipedia's more cancerous nonsense is written in such a way you'd think Orwell's Ministry of Truth was working overtime to sell cleverly disguised horseshit, while RW's up front bias means they don't sugarcoat any SJW topic and cower behind secondary sources to hide their own shilling.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: nanny911, Shaka Brah, Black Waltz and 3 others
GethN7 said:
While I find it hard to disagree, there is something that is both a minus and a plus.

While RW occasionally has better information, the SJW articles are still pretty bad, but in one sense, they are better than Wikipedia because their bias is pretty up front as opposed to that mealy mouthed roundabout positive style where they LARP as being neutral when they really aren't.

Wikipedia's more cancerous nonsense is written in such a way you'd think Orwell's Ministry of Truth was working overtime to sell cleverly disguised horseshit, while RW's up front bias means they don't sugarcoat any SJW topic and cower behind secondary sources to hide their own shilling.
Click to expand...

RW's insular nature also gives them a blind spot to their own bias, I don't think they could hide it if they wanted to. They believe their views truly are the neutral truth. You'd think they would be a little more self aware of the fact that they seem to use the logical fallacies section as a guide to debate, but what can you do.

I was hoping to see their twisted take on smiling maga kid, I couldn't find anything yet.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: nanny911, Shaka Brah and Francis E. Dec Esc.
GethN7 said:
While I find it hard to disagree, there is something that is both a minus and a plus.

While RW occasionally has better information, the SJW articles are still pretty bad, but in one sense, they are better than Wikipedia because their bias is pretty up front as opposed to that mealy mouthed roundabout positive style where they LARP as being neutral when they really aren't.

Wikipedia's more cancerous nonsense is written in such a way you'd think Orwell's Ministry of Truth was working overtime to sell cleverly disguised horseshit, while RW's up front bias means they don't sugarcoat any SJW topic and cower behind secondary sources to hide their own shilling.
Click to expand...

Also true. On Wikipedia "reliable sources" (WP:RS) means "sources that fit the worldview of myself and my fellow editors who control this page" and anyone bringing up the NPOV policy with their own sources is shot down immediately as "they don't meet WP:RS, Buzzfeed and Vox are perfectly reliable and factual on this." RatWiki doesn't give a fuck, they just flat out say "reality has a liberal bias" and leave it at that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: nanny911, Syaoran Li, Large and 2 others
AnOminous said:
Hate to say it but sometimes the RatWiki is actually better than the Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
RationalWiki can be good for refuting obviously crazy stuff like flat earth, the "elite are reptilian aliens" theory, or "quantum immortality/suicide" (the belief that when you die you somehow "respawn" in a parallel universe because quantum physics).

It can also be good for basic critical thinking, like explaining logical fallacies.

But other than that -- and like others said -- I think it's full of shit. Especially and at least where it tries to defend the Current Year "progressive" narrative.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: The Decimator, nanny911, Syaoran Li and 4 others
ToroidalBoat said:
But other than that -- and like others said -- I think it's full of shit. Especially and at least where it tries to defend the Current Year "progressive" narrative.
Click to expand...

I'm talking mostly about the articles written by skeptics mocking the contempt for reality displayed by people like creationists.

Not the SJWs who share the creationists' contempt for reality who have taken it over.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Shaka Brah, Syaoran Li, Francis E. Dec Esc. and 4 others
Hope this hasn't been posted before.

Lolcows, according to RationalWiki:
RatWikiLolcow.png
 
  • Informative
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Winner
Reactions: nanny911, Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL, José Mourinho and 4 others
Corbin Dallas Multipass said:
Eh, they've got their own lolcows they laugh at. They fully grasp the exact same concepts, they just ban you if you start using logic to connect the dots that show they're a bunch of hypocrites.
Click to expand...

RatWiki, before it was a site for rat kings and SJW morons, was a lolcow site that just happened to specialize in pseudoscience and religious crackpots. It was actually pretty good at that before it decided to become an SJW version of the lolcows it used to make fun of, with its own rigid dogma divorced from any factual reality.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Safir, Cool kitties club, The Decimator and 8 others
AnOminous said:
RatWiki, before it was a site for rat kings and SJW morons, was a lolcow site that just happened to specialize in pseudoscience and religious crackpots. It was actually pretty good at that before it decided to become an SJW version of the lolcows it used to make fun of, with its own rigid dogma divorced from any factual reality.
Click to expand...
Yeah, exactly. It's so funny when they went on a whole crusade about how evil doxxxxxxxxxxing is, then people were like "Uhh that's what half your site is guys". They removed some, then I think just banned anyone who brought them up after a while.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: nanny911, Syaoran Li, Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL and 1 other person
RichardMongler said:
Hope this hasn't been posted before.

Lolcows, according to RationalWiki:
View attachment 650856
Click to expand...

I like how they deride chronicling a person's internet behaviour, beliefs and eccentricities as "harassment" and "right wing" when the article rests on a giant box full of names of people, websites and companies that RatWiki has obsessively chronicled.
If it's on a wiki = okay
If it's on a forum = harassment you shitlord
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Crinoids, Blatant hypocrite, Hog On Ice and 14 others
Solzhenitsyn said:
I like how they deride chronicling a person's internet behaviour, beliefs and eccentricities as "harassment" and "right wing" when the article rests on a giant box full of names of people, websites and companies that RatWiki has obsessively chronicled.
If it's on a wiki = okay
If it's on a forum = harassment you shitlord
Click to expand...

No bad tactics, only bad targets. So when you spend the a decade-plus obsessively following an autistic guy who made a comic about an electric hedgehog you're an ableist Nazi harasser but when you spend a decade plus obsessively following some right-wing fundie who made a shitty Wikipedia knockoff you're doing a public service.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Lizard Machine Bugs, Ambidextype, Cool kitties club and 6 others
Corbin Dallas Multipass said:
To be honest...

Not their worst work. Someone reading that would come away with an understanding somewhat close to reality.
Click to expand...

It's close to reality, its just really biased. I wish I could say the same for Conservapedia, which seems to just be delusional conspiracy-drivel asspulls from a deranged maniac wannabe dictator, his asspatters, and several deep cover trolls who've been there for years and were the people who created rationalwiki in the first place.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cackspangler, Cool kitties club, Francis E. Dec Esc. and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back