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.
Oh Long Johnson said:
Well, there was also a sizable faction dedicated to trying to gamergate any Israel/Jewish pages before Mona could notice. At least there were until we doxed Mona and broke her brain, causing a rage quit. Like any sensible adult, I don't browse RatWiki, but those Israel/Jewish pages probably have been edited by the Social Justice Wehrmacht and likely exhibit gamergate quality nowadays.
Click to expand...

Lol I completely forgot about that. Was a fun revelation that you could go full fuhrer regarding Jews and so long as you didnt make jokes about SJWs or criticise people deemed "on the right side of history" or whatever you would be fully accepted and promoted by ratwiki.
 
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Jaimas, GethN7 and ICametoLurk
any new article ... that isnt a stub is the exact same "quality" of enraged textwall about how everyone who disagrees with the sped writing it is a vile super-rape enabler
Click to expand...

last 10 new articles:
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Feline Darkmage and The Kebab and Calculator
FuzzyCuckVersionTwo said:
reminder that: 99.95% of articles aren't Gamergate | 99.68% of active users aren't DG | and almost 1/2 of users found gamergate article unnecessary or bad



finally - a nuanced and factual critique
Click to expand...
Yeah, but only 32.18% of article bytes are not part of the giant gamergate tldrs.
 
FuzzyCuckVersionTwo said:
reminder that: 99.95% of articles aren't Gamergate | 99.68% of active users aren't DG | and almost 1/2 of users found gamergate article unnecessary or bad
Click to expand...

If I submitted an article to wikipedia about Obama turning the frogs gay and Jimbo Wales was like "Hey 99.95% of our articles are still good so the 99.68% of active wikipedos who disagree can shut the fuck up bc we're keeping this awesome article" what would that say about Wikipedia?

I mean, I do take your point. I'm sure you've got a lot of stuff on RW that's legitimately missional and impeccably sourced. I don't claim for a second that the majority, even the overwhelming majority if what you've got isn't good stuff that you can stand behind. But 'credibility' is not something that's proportional. When I see people everywhere saying "Hey RationalWiki's really good as long as you completely ignore topics X, Y, and anything to do with Z because they were written by gibbering retards", your overall credibility is shot. Nobody should ever have to say "Yeah just avoid this entire section of an encyclopedia because people are just blatantly making shit up in it". When I see a high-ranking member of RationalWiki's staff (ie; you) say "Hey RationalWiki's really good only a very small percentage of our articles are garbage that I can't get rid of because our Dear Leader is totes spastic for them", what the hell is anybody supposed to make of that?

I mean, I'm sorry to say this. You seem like a nice person, and I can tell you really, really care about RW from the way you (and pretty much you alone) keep mining for reviews off reddit and everywhere else, and even show up to shitholes like this to defend it. But an encyclopedia is a body of works to be used as a reference. If you can't stand by everything in it and say "this is good", or at the very least "yeah we're working on fixing that", then it's worthless. It's not 0.05% worthless, it's utterly worthless, because it has no consistent credibility and people can't show up and reasonably trust that they're getting factual information instead of the autistic screechings of an unemployable weeaboo manchild.

I mean, shit, even the lolcow.wiki has better quality control and that is openly and unashamedly just a meanspirited vehicle to smear and cyberbully autistic trannies, because we're shitty people who get a giggle out of the distress of others.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: Dirt McGirt, nanny911, Jaimas and 10 others
Dynastia said:
I mean, shit, even the lolcow.wiki has better quality control and that is openly and unashamedly just a meanspirited vehicle to smear and cyberbully autistic trannies, because we're shitty people who get a giggle out of the distress of others.
Click to expand...
Lolcow.wiki has such good quality control precisely because reporting the facts is what pisses off people the most. If it was more like RW no one would care lol
 
  • Agree
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: nanny911, BR55, SHITTAHS CLOGGED! and 5 others
vertexwindi said:
Lolcow.wiki has such good quality control precisely because reporting the facts is what pisses off people the most. If it was more like RW no one would care lol
Click to expand...

Maybe if we just quotemined shitposts and couldn't spell doxing we'd be as well-respected and informative as RationalWiki, and then ridiculous twitter spergs would start citing us when they expose neo-nazis like Joshua "Registered Democrat With a Tranny Girlfriend" Moon. Until then I guess we'll have to be content with nobodies like the Southern Poverty Law Center doing it when we expose neo-nazis like Lindsay "Actual Neo-Nazi Who Attempted To Murder a Bunch of People" Souvannarath.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: nanny911, BR55, SHITTAHS CLOGGED! and 4 others
BlueSpark said:
I know, and it originates from SA (where it was originally called "doxx"). I don't care how you spell it, just pointing out that Dynastia was incorrect in saying that RW spelled the word wrong.
Click to expand...
You're wrong and you should feel bad. @Dynastia is the High Prophet of Dox with his army of Dox Sluts here to serve his doxing whims. He was born of the Dox, raised in the living embrace of the Dox, and he grew to become... The Dox
 
  • DRINK!
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Like
Reactions: Blatant hypocrite, Troonologist PhD, WeeGee and 3 others
Dynastia said:
But 'credibility' is not something that's proportional.
Click to expand...

people *do* think this, but they *shouldn't*. why?

because no source is perfectly 100% credible. anything that tries to document anything will document it imperfectly.

hell: cancer research might get things wrong 80% of the time (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html?foxtrotcallback=true)

if no source is perfect, but you still want to know truth, your next best bet is to find the *least imperfect* source.

or: in a library of shitty encyclopedias, pick the one furthest from the toilet

when comparing two shitty encyclopedias, you have to pick the less shitty one

that's why it's not enough to say "the quran has 1 contradiction" -- everything has a contradiction. to "debunk" the quran, you have to show the quran is *really contradict-y*, or at least *more contradict-y* than science

tldr: rationalwiki does a bad job with "serious" issues -- it has severe political biases. but when its main purpose is to shit on the Alex Joneses of the world, it does just fine

--

imho this is why SJWs call people "problematic" etc and meme-nazis call people "cucks". easier to discredit than to debunk
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Syaoran Li, BlueSpark, From The Uncanny Valley and 3 others
FuzzyCuckVersionTwo said:
people *do* think this, but they *shouldn't*. why?

because no source is perfectly 100% credible. anything that tries to document anything will document it imperfectly.
Click to expand...

it's not something that RW is actively trying to fix though. It's something that everyone has thrown their hands up on and gone 'well the owner is a fucking nutjob so I guess we can't do anything about it'

there's a big difference between being wrong and being willfully ignorant
 
  • Agree
Reactions: nanny911, Syaoran Li, Uncanny Valley and 1 other person
FuzzyCuckVersionTwo said:
people *do* think this, but they *shouldn't*. why?

because no source is perfectly 100% credible. anything that tries to document anything will document it imperfectly.

hell: cancer research might get things wrong 80% of the time (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html?foxtrotcallback=true)

if no source is perfect, but you still want to know truth, your next best bet is to find the *least imperfect* source.

or: in a library of shitty encyclopedias, pick the one furthest from the toilet

when comparing two shitty encyclopedias, you have to pick the less shitty one

that's why it's not enough to say "the quran has 1 contradiction" -- everything has a contradiction. to "debunk" the quran, you have to show the quran is *really contradict-y*, or at least *more contradict-y* than science

tldr: rationalwiki does a bad job with "serious" issues -- it has severe political biases. but when its main purpose is to shit on the Alex Joneses of the world, it does just fine
Click to expand...

I can agree with all of this ; but we've seen how your sausage gets made. We've seen your directionless flailing in the chicken coops, we've seen your Dear Leader import unhinged lunatics to write insane novellas on dumb internet drama for him that nobody else wanted, we've seen the chaos and panic and internal witch-hunting our little offsite doxing fun caused you, we've seen your editors desperately try to bend reality itself to explain how us doxing people is bad but you doxing people is fine. We've seen a severely mentally ill person called Oliver Smith shop around multiple islamic forums literally trying to have our Dear Leader murdered by terrorists by quotemining his anti-muslim shitposts, and then when they deleted his ramblings he turned it into an RW article instead and y'all said "yeah this is fine." We've seen, time and time again, a blatant disregard for truth and sources and reality from the majority of your editors anytime something doesn't fit their narrow, black & white worldview. Credibility comes in degrees, absolutely, but what I really should have said is 'your credibility is not proportional to your body of work', because when you openly act with the level of self-awareness that the majority of rationalwiki editors display it gets your encyclopedia a seat closest to the toilet.

tl:dr I'm sure you're an excellent reference source for any topic that is ignored by literally everyone else. If I got a choice though, I'd prefer Buzzfeed.

imho this is why SJWs call people "problematic" etc and meme-nazis call people "cucks". easier to discredit than to debunk
Click to expand...

Most of the time, sure. Sometimes SJWs call us problematic because we're actually causing them problems, and sometimes we call people cucks because they're Castaigne, who literally lives with two other men and lets them bang his fat gross wife.
 
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: nanny911, Emperor Julian, Syaoran Li and 13 others
@FuzzyCuckVersionTwo FWIW I have long thought you were decent folk and wondered how on earth you have kept going at RW for this long.

Dynastia said:
Most of the time, sure. Sometimes SJWs call us problematic because we're actually causing them problems, and sometimes we call people cucks because they're Castaigne, who literally lives with two other men and lets them bang his fat gross wife.
Click to expand...

Cuckstain.. now there's a name I have not heard for quite some time. I wonder where he hangs these days?
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: From The Uncanny Valley
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back