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

[The Kebab and Calculator]

Before his ban, Ryulong had an edit count of 7,121 at RationalWiki. Not sure there is way of finding how many of those were at the GG articles and the various coop cases that his GG editing inspired?

<user userid="44518" name="Ryulong" editcount="7121" />

 

[The Kebab and Calculator]

In the same week as the chat log leaks about Double Dlagon, his magnum opus at RationalWiki has been nominated for silver article status. RW has a rather autistic ratings system for articles which most editors just seem to ignore but someone clearly cares enough to nominate this for silver.

http://archive.is/hHMXk

 

[LulzKiller]

RW has a rather autistic ratings system for articles which most editors just seem to ignore but someone clearly cares enough to nominate this for silver.

Bronze-level articles

Bronze: Good article

• Article must not be a stub or VSA and should not be tagged with any of the "articles requiring attention" categories.
• Article is formatted correctly according to the manual of style.
• Article contains appropriate internal and external links, categories, and references if appropriate.
• Article is coherent and free of needless in-jokes, such as irrelevant references to Conservapedia, and the jokes and snark it does contain are balanced with factual content.
• The article content is original, and not largely copied (even under license).

Silver-level articles

Silver: Very good article

• Article topic is directly relevant to and worthy of RW's mission (i.e., potential upgrading to cover story would be uncontroversial).
• Article should not contain repetitive content.
• Article is almost fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
• Article is illustrated appropriately.
• Article is free of blatant spelling and grammar errors.

Cover stories

Gold: Cover story status

• The topic is highly relevant to RW's mission.
• Article is essentially a "go to" resource for the topic at hand.
• Article covers all aspects of the topic at hand in-depth.
• It is fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
• Where necessary and possible, the article is supported by others that are of a good quality (e.g., homeopathy and water memory).
• The cover status has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. This last criterion is the most important.

http://archive.is/xDuqX

 

[AnOminous]

In the same week as the chat log leaks about Double Dlagon, his magnum opus at RationalWiki has been nominated for silver article status. RW has a rather autistic ratings system for articles which most editors just seem to ignore but someone clearly cares enough to nominate this for silver.

View attachment 129234

http://archive.is/hHMXk

They don't even realize the very existence of this stupid as fuck article about shit nobody cares about disqualifies the whole site from its "Rational" name.

 

[Hellfire]

 

[Cynical]

They don't even realize the very existence of this stupid as fuck article about shit nobody cares about disqualifies the whole site from its "Rational" name.

Crosspost from Ghazi thread:

RationalWiki shilling their bullshit to GamerGhazi despite the CON leaks shitting all over their bullshit article, cult followers circlejerk over it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/50ibdn/rationalwikis_gamergate_article_nominated_for/

 

[The Kebab and Calculator]

And the Gamergate article is now being touted as a cover (gold-rated) piece.

https://archive.is/lKSAC

Can anyone who understands a bit more about this than me, give us a quick rundown of any grounds for doubting the authenticity of the leaked CON chat logs?

Strong claims (perhaps not surprisingly) on the RW article talk page that the logs are not genuine.

and @FuzzyCuck - losing battle, losing battle.

 

[Cynical]

And the Gamergate article is now being touted as a cover (gold-rated) piece.

https://archive.is/lKSAC

Can anyone who understands a bit more about this than me, give us a quick rundown of any grounds for doubting the authenticity of the leaked CON chat logs?

Strong claims (perhaps not surprisingly) on the RW article talk page that the logs are not genuine.

and @FuzzyCuck - losing battle, losing battle.

Because the logs portray everyone they want to white knight in the shittiest light possible, and retroactively makes most of the GamerGate article's claims complete horseshit.

Randi Harper, Ian Miles Cheong, David Gallant, and even Peter Coffin have confirmed they are real, as well as a few others who were in them, with some reacting by going silent like SecretGamerGirl or outright burning their social media accounts like UnseenPerifdy not long after they dropped.

More confirmation has come from the fact people talking about them on Youtube have been hit with DMCA false flags, and Geth on Medium had to make sure he had the permission of someone in the logs to repost his own article on Medium addressing them, which Ian Miles Cheong helpfully supplied not long after hearing about it.

 

[The Kebab and Calculator]

Thanks @Cynical . So no grounds basically. RationalWiki editors are echo-chambering yet again.

 

[AnOminous]

And the Gamergate article is now being touted as a cover (gold-rated) piece.

https://archive.is/lKSAC

Can anyone who understands a bit more about this than me, give us a quick rundown of any grounds for doubting the authenticity of the leaked CON chat logs?

If they were applying real Wikipedia rules, it would be a primary source, and conclusions drawn from it original research. Anything about it would have to come from a secondary (reliable) source.

 

[Rou]

If they were applying real Wikipedia rules, it would be a primary source, and conclusions drawn from it original research. Anything about it would have to come from a secondary (reliable) source.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't considering it a useful source either. I wonder why.

 

[AnOminous]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't considering it a useful source either. I wonder why.

Because it isn't. It would never be an acceptable source. Primary sources and original research are routinely shot down. One of the more obvious examples is if you've ever tried to edit an article citing the actual legal opinion of a court. Unless it's been covered by some other source, like a legal newspaper or the mainstream media, it doesn't fly.

 

[vertexwindi]

Wikipedia says it themselves: they rely on verifiability, not truth.

Remember the time an article falsely accused the Wikipedia administration of sexism? That didn't happen obviously, but because a "reputable" source claims it did, they wrote it down anyway. You'd think that'd be a wake-up call.

 

[AnOminous]

Wikipedia says it themselves: they rely on verifiability, not truth.

Remember the time an article falsely accused the Wikipedia administration of sexism? That didn't happen obviously, but because a "reputable" source claims it did, they wrote it down anyway. You'd think that'd be a wake-up call.

When they got basic factual details about a novel by Philip Roth down, they refused to accept Philip Roth telling them they were completely fucking wrong as a source until The New Yorker published it as an open letter by Philip Roth, then they had another article about the affair citing sources about how completely fucking stupid they are.

 

[Hellfire]

 

[The Kebab and Calculator]

This could be used as a text book example of echobox denial.

http://archive.is/0PEfq

 

[Hellfire]

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

View attachment 131337

So, old Dave has embraced the new alt-right boogeyman. He shouldn't be requiring anything of anyone until he charts his enemies hierarchy so we can tell who's alt-right, girlygroper, antifeminist, MRA or whatever demon of the week he's flogging. I imagine such a Venn diagram would just be superimposed circles.

 

[Adamska]

No rational human being fearmongers and chimps about something you almost never see in the mainstream news. This is because they would think first about the impact of the thing they read on a webshite and try and compare to at least another source before doing. Therefore Ratwiki is not rational and not worthy of its name.

 

[AnOminous]

View attachment 131337

Dave has become such a fucking embarrassment. Who's said "this changes everything" or even anything like that? It simply is yet another confirmation of what was already known.