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

[Jaimas]

I don't have much time now, and I'm out for a few days; but a quick note:

"Cold, hard, unbiased, and unabashed" data can be very very difficulty, even in hard sciences like physics. Data on its own is rarely useful; it needs interpretation, comparison, context, etc. and this is where is bias sneaks in... We should definitely *try*, be the way.

The biggest source of RW's bias came because people didn't realize what was happening until it's too late: It's how it always goes.

One or two individuals with a certain ideology get in the door, typically despite a lack of qualifications and more often than not because of the say-so of a friend; once in position, they then proceed to appoint their friends to positions of authority, and unless otherwise stopped they'll proceed to use their newfound power aggressively to turn the site into their own personal clubhouse.

In short order, a site that had nothing to do with something now is all about that something; a blog covering confirmed rapists in the furry fandom suddenly becomes a shrieking hotbed where its mods can bitch about cis people, a site that was discussing matters relevant to the Atheist community now suddenly becomes embroiled in discussions on how we need to force misogynists out of atheism; video game coverage suddenly gets infested with people who hate video games, and sites like yours and Wikipedia wind up with ideologues trying to turn them into yet one more attack platform.

It's played out time and time again.

Vade did it, Ryulong did it, Brianna Wu's done it, and it's endemic on internet by now. Being aware of it and knowing how it happens is your best defense against it.

 

[Cave]

"Even furfags hate RationalWiki."

I love ED.

 

[HG 400]

The biggest source of RW's bias came because people didn't realize what was happening until it's too late: It's how it always goes.

One or two individuals with a certain ideology get in the door, typically despite a lack of qualifications and more often than not because of the say-so of a friend; once in position, they then proceed to appoint their friends to positions of authority, and unless otherwise stopped they'll proceed to use their newfound power aggressively to turn the site into their own personal clubhouse.

In short order, a site that had nothing to do with something now is all about that something; a blog covering confirmed rapists in the furry fandom suddenly becomes a shrieking hotbed where its mods can bitch about cis people, a site that was discussing matters relevant to the Atheist community now suddenly becomes embroiled in discussions on how we need to force misogynists out of atheism; video game coverage suddenly gets infested with people who hate video games, and sites like yours and Wikipedia wind up with ideologues trying to turn them into yet one more attack platform.

It's played out time and time again.

Vade did it, Ryulong did it, Brianna Wu's done it, and it's endemic on internet by now. Being aware of it and knowing how it happens is your best defense against it.

Go to the gamergate talk page and correct something. Something minor. Something obviously false. Don't demand the article gets a pro-gg or even neutral voice, don't try to change the entire article all at once, just pick out some blatantly false assertion and give a cited, reasoned explanation on how it's wrong. Pick something, anything, and focus on that. Don't wax poetic about the oncoming tide of Social Justice bias, don't drop gamergate.me links and expect people to rummage through it, and don't into bizarre tinfoil unfounded theories about kidnapped sisters and DIGRA conspiracies. Just pick out one simple thing and fix it. From a quick glance over it, they're calling the Zoe Post a 'bitter, hateful, rambling screed by a jilted ex-boyfriend', sourced by Margaret Pless, of all people. I know for a fact there are SJ blogs whose authors actually read the fucking thing, and called it a harrowing tale of emotional abuse and gaslighting (incorectly in my view because harden the fuck up Eron). Because right now I'm seeing a whole slew of faggots on KiA and WiA whining about what a festering hive of lies and half-truths the RW article is, and pretty much nobody taking up the offer to go point out where and why. They're just crying like faggots about how nobody will listen to them and when asked how it's wrong they just wail "ALL OF IT WAAAAAAAAAH".

I want to see what kitsufaggot and company do, because I'm 90% certain they'll chimp out like insane motherfuckers, and I really really really want to see what Ryulong does because I'm 99% certain he'll come shrieking back to defend his precious gamergate smear page and get BTFO even harder by the RW mods. Problem is, my autism levels are simply inadequate for working on wikis.

Go, Jaimas. Go and wiki to the extreme.

edit ; and ffs stop linking citations to Vade drama to people who aren't from the Kiwi Farms. I'm practically a white-suited Colonel-Sanders-Bearded Kiwi Plantation Owner and even I have no fucking clue what that shit is all about. I swear I'm this fucking close to coining a Godwin's Law parallel about Vade and naming it after you.

 

[Jaimas]

Go to the gamergate talk page and correct something. Something minor. Something obviously false. Don't demand the article gets a pro-gg or even neutral voice, don't try to change the entire article all at once, just pick out some blatantly false assertion and give a cited, reasoned explanation on how it's wrong. Pick something, anything, and focus on that. Don't wax poetic about the oncoming tide of Social Justice bias, don't drop gamergate.me links and expect people to rummage through it, and don't into bizarre tinfoil unfounded theories about kidnapped sisters and DIGRA conspiracies. Just pick out one simple thing and fix it. From a quick glance over it, they're calling the Zoe Post a 'bitter, hateful, rambling screed by a jilted ex-boyfriend', sourced by Margaret Pless, of all people. I know for a fact there are SJ blogs whose authors actually read the fucking thing, and called it a harrowing tale of emotional abuse and gaslighting (incorectly in my view because harden the fuck up Eron). Because right now I'm seeing a whole slew of faggots on KiA and WiA whining about what a festering hive of lies and half-truths the RW article is, and pretty much nobody taking up the offer to go point out where and why. They're just crying like faggots about how nobody will listen to them and when asked how it's wrong they just wail "ALL OF IT WAAAAAAAAAH".

I want to see what kitsufaggot and company do, because I'm 90% certain they'll chimp out like insane motherfuckers, and I really really really want to see what Ryulong does because I'm 99% certain he'll come shrieking back to defend his precious gamergate smear page and get BTFO even harder by the RW mods. Problem is, my autism levels are simply inadequate for working on wikis.

Go, Jaimas. Go and wiki to the extreme.

edit ; and ffs stop linking citations to Vade drama to people who aren't from the Kiwi Farms. I'm practically a white-suited Colonel-Sanders-Bearded Kiwi Plantation Owner and even I have no fucking clue what that shit is all about. I swear I'm this fucking close to coining a Godwin's Law parallel about Vade and naming it after you.

Fair enough, I'll shut up about her.

As for what to add, I have a few ideas. It'll need to wait until I'm not fucking half-dead from exhaustion, however. This commute is doing me no favors.

EDIT: IT BEGINS

 

[HG 400]

@WhoopieDoo

Do you have an opinion on Sam Smith's foray into RationalWiki. It appears that after your friends invited WikiInAction to discuss the gamergate page he showed up to argue against certain claims being made, not about gamergate, but about him specifically. He's requested that RW doesn't use his middle name, and he disputes a fairly extensive list of claims made about him, by RW. While I don't have any idea what your BLP policy is (and don't care), and have no idea whether the claims made about him are accurate or not, it would seem warranted for somebody to actually check over his list and ensure that any claims about him can be properly sourced, or discard them. He claims that in one instance your source is a deleted post from gamerghazi. I don't know much about him and I haven't even bothered to read your article but I do know that a deleted gamergazi post is below the level of thrown bones and chicken-entrails when it comes to citing a credible source.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_Gamergate#Disputed_Facts_-_Vordrak

Instead of addressing his list of disputed claims, however, somebody cited a few paragraphs of his off-RW shenanigans (which are equal-parts hilarious and stupid) and told him 'you're not getting your way' then immediately opened up a coop case to have him preemptively banned 'as a danger to RW'. The coop discussion then ran towards mockery, he had his whining threaten-you-with-legal-action email to David Gerard posted publicly, and people have discussed adding him to a "list of people butthurt with RW".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Chicken_coop#Vordrak

You can find his account of it here.

Don't get me wrong, I think this guy is a complete faggot. A stupid, obsessive, unbelievable faggot. I've seen his shenanigans and I think he's a fuckwit, and probably incapable of fitting in to any kind of collaborative project. If I ran a wiki I cared about and he showed up I'd ban him immediately. Before he made his first edit, if possible. But then, I'd do the exact same thing to Ryulong. How does it happen that you guys ate Ryulong's shit every day with a grin for almost a year now, but you're throwing the hammer at this chap before he's even done anything at all?

But I don't really care. I just have to ask ; If you guys are making allegations about a person citing a post from a fringe subreddit (let alone a deleted post from a fringe subreddit), and then respond to his request to remove it by immediately banning him, mocking him, posting his whiny emails and laughing about what a butthurt crybaby he is, I really have to ask... are you trying to be a smugger, unfunnier version of ED? Because even lolcow.wiki doesn't treat our subjects that badly when they dispute content, and we take pride in what absolute heinous assholes we are.

Is this kind of shit okay with you? Seriously?

 

[DNJACK]

its really bad form.

 

[APerson]

Ah, KitsunElaine's already there. God forbid the article change from Ryulong's version.

Spoiler

 

[chimpburgers]

Ah, KitsunElaine's already there. God forbid the article change from Ryulong's version.

Spoiler

View attachment 62524

Whoever that is must be a massive tard.

 

[AnOminous]

This is rather funny:

"FWIW - The opping of [x] struck me as a terrible idea - he's not only a bloody worthless waste of space as a contributor (and a good example of the principle that if you just got kicked off Wikipedia, you won't do any better on RW without changing your ways"

Who's [x]? If you guessed Ryulong and someone was talking about David Gerard making him a fucking sysop, you'd be wrong. It's actually David Gerard, from this discussion:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php...46#User:Ryulong_and_User:Exiled_Encyclopedist

Also, damn, @Dynastia is scary when he gets serious about something.

 

[HG 400]

Also, damn, @Dynastia is scary when he gets serious about something.

If people are going to smugly pretend like they're not just as morally dogshit as we are, they need to at least put a modicum of effort into selling the lie.

 

[chimpburgers]

If people are going to smugly pretend like they're not just as morally dogshit as we are, they need to at least put a modicum of effort into selling the lie.

I like it when you're completely not fucking around. It's like you got this uncanny ability to destroy someone's shit arguments just like that.

 

[Adamska]

Eh, RationalWiki just comes off as trollshielding against Conservapedia anyway, since most conspiritards hock up the same points and beats from their forebears. Debunking them gets easier and easier by the minute too due to the ability of people to find people alread debunking stale shit, so it's not even like they have to try and find resources.

This trollshielding is especially obvious now considering nowadays they allow a retarded man who ruined his life and wastes his waking day over the 'r/l' thing in Japan to shitpost to the extreme with his even more pathetic friends being given some level of control. All while still mocking the same people as if they're better somehow despite using the same cheap tactics.

Why? Because more bloody biased than MSNBC and with worse research skill than the Daily Telegraph for climate change that's why.

 

[AnOminous]

Eh, RationalWiki just comes off as trollshielding against Conservapedia anyway, since most conspiritards hock up the same points and beats from their forebears.

At least the conservatard wiki puts its conservative bias up front and center. There isn't any pretense about it.

RationalWiki implies that it's about rationalism and skepticism, which would in a legitimate wiki fitting this description, require applying the same rigor to one's own positions as that of those criticized.

Instead, it's blue hair tumblr central SJWpedia. Even people who pass as liberal in normal society, like Richard Dawkins for instance, are reviled as the next best thing to Hitler there.

 

[Cynical]

At least the conservatard wiki puts its conservative bias up front and center. There isn't any pretense about it.

RationalWiki implies that it's about rationalism and skepticism, which would in a legitimate wiki fitting this description, require applying the same rigor to one's own positions as that of those criticized.

Instead, it's blue hair tumblr central SJWpedia. Even people who pass as liberal in normal society, like Richard Dawkins for instance, are reviled as the next best thing to Hitler there.

Which is rather ironic, as they used to revere him at one point as some atheist hero.

 

[chimpburgers]

Which is rather ironic, as they used to revere him at one point as some atheist hero.

They were the same with Thunderf00t if you've read their article on him before 2012. Right after all that controversy happened, he got the insufferable asshole tag and that's where all the Islamophobia accusations kept coming from. I can tell you that they are probably working on some hit piece on Dave Rubin too.

 

[AnOminous]

They were the same with Thunderf00t if you've read their article on him before 2012. Right after all that controversy happened, he got the insufferable asshole tag and that's where all the Islamophobia accusations kept coming from. I can tell you that they are probably working on some hit piece on Dave Rubin too.

This is why RationalWiki is more of a barometer for how you are regarded among a small clique of whorish degenerates than anything about your actual reputation among normal people.

Its reliable source policy, if there even is one, is complete garbage.

It is, simply, not an encyclopedic resource. It is, surprisingly, even worse than ED at actually being factually accurate, and ED openly doesn't give a flying fuck about whether its content is false, made up, or deliberately defamatory.

 

[The Nameless One]

Go to the gamergate talk page and correct something. Something minor. Something obviously false. Don't demand the article gets a pro-gg or even neutral voice, don't try to change the entire article all at once, just pick out some blatantly false assertion and give a cited, reasoned explanation on how it's wrong.

December 2015: Amoral goons from a hateful cyber-stalking website troll RationalWiki by making a series of minor improvements to several articles.

Also, from this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:G...anquished_and_we_are_open_for_pro-GG_business...

I would caution you all against taking the opposite of Ryulong's most major fallacy: that being that you need to be a supporter of Ryulong to be anti-Gamergate and the converse that being anti-Ryulong means you need to be pro-Gamergate. The onus is still on those who are pro-Gamergate to prove that Gamergate was anything more than a misogynistic reactionary movement.

"We totes don't default to lazy SJW mentality on this website, you guyz! Now, all you goobergrapers get back to proving a negative."

 

[HG 400]

I'll withhold judgement on it being that bad, but the articles related to enemies of atheism+ are clearly just smear pieces made by butthurt social justice types with the rest of the userbase not paying proper attention to them and seeing just how bad they've gotten.

I'm getting a real kick out of the gamergate article now. Check the reverts and talk page, kitsu is struggling to keep his head above water now that the rest of the site is picking over the hot mess Ryulong left them with.

Tielec01's reactions are especially hilarious.

Pathetic attempt at poisoning the well

Even as the calmest person on RW, fact not needed, the incompetence on display in this article is infuriating.

Another shitty piece of research to justify a point that doesn't even need to be in the article. The more layers you peel back on this article the worse it starts to look

My personal favourite.

GG is right-wing, of that I have no doubt. The rest of your post is just opinions, opinions that are somewhat contradicted by research. Unfortunately people such as you have mistaken your opinions for compelling arguments and inserted them into this article.... Find good sources and substitute your thoughts above for the first sentence in "Origins of Gamergate". The current sentence cherry picks data from a survey, ignores other surveys (with a better methodology) that contradict it and then makes a wild assumption that hardcore gamers are more conservative than non-hardcore gamers (god knows how what criteria is used for hardcore and non-hardcore) and finishes with a rhetorical flourish that some gamers are "libertarian MRAs from 4chan." It's pathetic.

I love how the discovery that their evidence is blatantly massaged to the point of outright fabrication still isn't enough to make them stop and think "maybe some of the shit here is actually wrong". No, Rational Wiki can't be wrong. We just need to find new evidence. Better evidence. Protip ; Ryulong's been working on this 10 hours a day for almost a year. If there was better evidence to cite, he'd have used it. The man's an insane, disingenuous, histrionic madman, but he knows how to do wiki.

Keep peeling, Tielec. There's plenty more layers in this onion and you will cry by the end of it.

 

[APerson]

Oh, it's beautiful. Tielec and the mod from this post:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:G...anquished_and_we_are_open_for_pro-GG_business...

are the ones defending the following scary, giant changes:
the removal of the assertion that some hardcore gamers are "libertarian MRAs from 4chan".
the removal of a mostly unrelated Venn Diagram.

And then the thread devolved into "All GamerGaters are right-wing", because why not.
EDIT: Capped most recent part of thread.

Spoiler

Fun with Scotsmen!

 

[AnOminous]

Tielec01's reactions are especially hilarious.

Like this:

"GG is right-wing, of that I have no doubt."

You have no doubt, but you have no evidence whatsoever.

It's like he never saw this:

But because a tiny cadre of social justice thugs say so, it must be right wing.