RationalWiki has, since at least 2014, been one of those sites where the branding is exactly backards: It isn't in the least concerned with rationality, nor is it actually an open wiki.
TBH, I didn't even view his RatWiki article, at least the direct quotes in it, as being all that bad (other than any accusations of him himself being a pedophile, which I don't think are on there right now?). But I certainly don't think that he should be fired or have his life ruined for them.
The real problem isn't the single unwell individual in question, or even RationalWiki per se, but that Google and other search engines prop RationalWiki as a serious website with stringent editorial standards, as opposed to the dumping ground for slanderous hit pieces that it is, and one that despite its claims to the contrary de facto disallows its victims from factually disputing them (I was permanently banned from there on transparently ridiculous charges of sock puppetry).
PS. Regarding said individual, I am still interested in the nature of the "private settlement" between him and the Manhattan Institute that resulted in City Journal unpublishing their expository article about him (https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/oliver-d-smith-gets-his-day-in-city). Did one of America's most prominent and well-funded right-wing conservative organizations end up paying hush money to a professional cancelation troll? If anyone has info about this and thinks it would be a good idea to make it public, please feel free to reach out to me.
Wikipedia isn't much better. They reference slanted news stories on a topic as if they are authoritative and neutral. It's weaponised Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
Unfortunately, yes. There was a brief golden age before the woke janissaries took over mod duties when the articles on topics like Guns, Germs and Steel were broadly balanced, but that's long gone now.
A created a new account to protect my identity seeming as I noticed RationalWiki has already seen this page, but is the same person Emil speaks of the one mentioned by PaoloShirasi?
It seems like Rational Wiki should get much stricter editorial criteria and also give people's responses a much greater say in it. And Google shouldn't rank it so highly. I'm also extraordinarily wary of Rational Wiki being ranked so high on Google and also being used to justify ruining people's lives and careers (because I do think that hereditarian and non-conformist research has a lot of value for society, et cetera).
At the same time, though, are the quotes that are presented on Rational Wiki really all that inaccurate? Especially if they will be placed in their proper context? I understand that some of the quotes on it can be perceived as being very offensive, but they're still entertaining to read and sometimes not entirely inaccurate. Emil Kirkegaard's complaints about Muslim immigration to Europe, for instance.
The answer seems to me that anyone interested in objective accuracy cannot trust any source at any time, without at least a periodical examination of the source for biases, either for one's own favored positions, or against.
I even have to check up on *myself*, it's gotten that bad.
Integrity is an out-dated and superfluous impulse and has been for > 10 years. To practice integrity means that you're willing to lose a debate, and we're living in an era where winning is more important than objective accuracy. Individual expression linked firmly to ego is paramount. So preserve the ego at the cost of accuracy. This leads to a non-realistic belief system based and that's essentially what we've got out there, now, at all levels. It's a field day for manipulators, who merely need to play to preconceived notions as if they were absolute truths, rather than fanciful utopias.
Nor is compromise available either. Every exchange is potentially a zero-sum game, it looks like.
Ah, yeah -- that makes sense. I wrote this comment half-awake. I know Google de-ranks KiwiFarms, for example, but not gossip sites that are lesser known (like some imageboards).
Probably too little conversation about two (imo, twin) problems: 1) databrokers + doxxing, 2) how trustworthiness is determined
RationalWiki is a response to the laughable "Conservapedia" written by Phyllis Schlafly's son. Conservapedia is a collection of christofascism, Trump worship, and general conservative hysteria so extreme that if the reader didn't know who wrote it, they'd assume it was a parody.
RationalWiki has, since at least 2014, been one of those sites where the branding is exactly backards: It isn't in the least concerned with rationality, nor is it actually an open wiki.
Kirkegaard is indispensable. Keep telling the truth.
TBH, I didn't even view his RatWiki article, at least the direct quotes in it, as being all that bad (other than any accusations of him himself being a pedophile, which I don't think are on there right now?). But I certainly don't think that he should be fired or have his life ruined for them.
Even Encyclopedia Dramatica is more reasonable than Rat Wiki
The real problem isn't the single unwell individual in question, or even RationalWiki per se, but that Google and other search engines prop RationalWiki as a serious website with stringent editorial standards, as opposed to the dumping ground for slanderous hit pieces that it is, and one that despite its claims to the contrary de facto disallows its victims from factually disputing them (I was permanently banned from there on transparently ridiculous charges of sock puppetry).
PS. Regarding said individual, I am still interested in the nature of the "private settlement" between him and the Manhattan Institute that resulted in City Journal unpublishing their expository article about him (https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/oliver-d-smith-gets-his-day-in-city). Did one of America's most prominent and well-funded right-wing conservative organizations end up paying hush money to a professional cancelation troll? If anyone has info about this and thinks it would be a good idea to make it public, please feel free to reach out to me.
Good to be aware of Rational Wiki, thanks, I have heard of it, and assumed it was legit.
Slander isn't free. Lol. One must be careful what one says and about whom.
Wikipedia isn't much better. They reference slanted news stories on a topic as if they are authoritative and neutral. It's weaponised Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
Unfortunately, yes. There was a brief golden age before the woke janissaries took over mod duties when the articles on topics like Guns, Germs and Steel were broadly balanced, but that's long gone now.
Disagreement is a fundamental right, but not when it's taken to the point that you slander and libel someone you disagree with.
There are times I'd like to take the radical left out behind the woodshed
A created a new account to protect my identity seeming as I noticed RationalWiki has already seen this page, but is the same person Emil speaks of the one mentioned by PaoloShirasi?
https://x.com/PaoloShirasi/status/1799884954299748852
Question: Does Wikipedia also avoid legal liability for what is written on its own website?
It seems like Rational Wiki should get much stricter editorial criteria and also give people's responses a much greater say in it. And Google shouldn't rank it so highly. I'm also extraordinarily wary of Rational Wiki being ranked so high on Google and also being used to justify ruining people's lives and careers (because I do think that hereditarian and non-conformist research has a lot of value for society, et cetera).
At the same time, though, are the quotes that are presented on Rational Wiki really all that inaccurate? Especially if they will be placed in their proper context? I understand that some of the quotes on it can be perceived as being very offensive, but they're still entertaining to read and sometimes not entirely inaccurate. Emil Kirkegaard's complaints about Muslim immigration to Europe, for instance.
I am a strong supporter of Mr. Kirkegaard. I trust and enjoy his work.
What can you do about it though? The same was true of EncyclopediaDramatica, and some gossip sites.
ED (which unlike RW is actually funny) is treated appropriately by Google, i.e. it is treated as a low quality source and deranked appropriately.
RW is almost as privileged by Google as the real Wikipedia.
That's ultimately the crux of the problem.
The answer seems to me that anyone interested in objective accuracy cannot trust any source at any time, without at least a periodical examination of the source for biases, either for one's own favored positions, or against.
I even have to check up on *myself*, it's gotten that bad.
Integrity is an out-dated and superfluous impulse and has been for > 10 years. To practice integrity means that you're willing to lose a debate, and we're living in an era where winning is more important than objective accuracy. Individual expression linked firmly to ego is paramount. So preserve the ego at the cost of accuracy. This leads to a non-realistic belief system based and that's essentially what we've got out there, now, at all levels. It's a field day for manipulators, who merely need to play to preconceived notions as if they were absolute truths, rather than fanciful utopias.
Nor is compromise available either. Every exchange is potentially a zero-sum game, it looks like.
Ah, yeah -- that makes sense. I wrote this comment half-awake. I know Google de-ranks KiwiFarms, for example, but not gossip sites that are lesser known (like some imageboards).
Probably too little conversation about two (imo, twin) problems: 1) databrokers + doxxing, 2) how trustworthiness is determined
Search probably should be totally reimagined
RationalWiki is a response to the laughable "Conservapedia" written by Phyllis Schlafly's son. Conservapedia is a collection of christofascism, Trump worship, and general conservative hysteria so extreme that if the reader didn't know who wrote it, they'd assume it was a parody.
And yet Conservapedia still manages to be more accurate than RationalWiki.
Which is like saying a flat earther is more accurate than someone who says Elvis is still alive.
RationalWiki is not restricted to obscure bloggers. They also attack the Wall Street Journal, blaming a perceived decline on Rupert Murdoch.
You sound extremely pissed that free speech exists lol. Just calm down and log off
Some free speech gets amplified more than others, it seems.
You sound retarded lol.
I mean its not any different from ED or kiwifarms
It is different to ED and Kiwifarms because it's pretending to be an unbiased encyclopedia.
Im just saying this whole thing sounds like a nothingburger
"At the top of Emil’s first Google page is a link to a curious profile on a website called RationalWiki."
It's the first sentence dude. You didn't even have to read further than that. Google isn't boosting Kiwifarms links.