Main Page

RationalWiki is possibly the best website ever made by man God himself. Anyone who reads this page should probably donate money to RationalWiki. We mean that. Because believe it or not, our goal is to engage in destructive criticism and cyber bullying help RationalWiki. By observing RationalWikians' behavior in their natural habitat, we aim to:

Identify groupthink

Many of the good folks at RationalWiki share a similar world-view, and many of the more established users also share a common heritage following their experiences at CP. This can lead them to close ranks without really thinking of the consequences. An example of this would be the Fuck You Too Incident.

Identify power abuse

Sysops on RationalWiki were originally intended to (a) be given minimal control over site matters, and (b) be janitors, not administrators. The reality is turning out to be somewhat different, however. Sysops do have power -- the power to block other users. By identifying the use of malicious blocks, RationalWikiWiki seeks to keep that power in check.

The role of bureaucrats is even more vague, and appropriate use of their promotion/demotion abilities even more open to abuse. Thus, we also document punitive demotions.

Observe the evolution of RationalWiki

RationalWiki started out as a haven for a dozen or so liberal ex-Conservapedians to have fun and coordinate vandalism (RationalWiki 1.0). It was reincarnated soon after as an open wiki (RationalWiki 2.0). It slowly grew from an obscure, small wiki to a medium-small wiki with limited recognition in the blogosphere, and is now accelerating towards who knows what.

As it matures, the more notable personal conflicts show signs of developing into faction warfare, even as older conflicts fade away, and egos increasingly become a problem. There is also an increasing (and eyebrow-raising) willingness to throw newcomers under the bus, simply because their timing or their name was suspicious (a descriptor always in the eye of the beholder), and the growing tendency of certain members who, in misguided efforts to not be Conservapedia, start acting like Conservapedia.

Will RationalWiki make something of itself? Or will it turn into an Encyclopedia Dramatica that happens to have an anti-Conservapedia focus?

Observe conflicts & their resolution

RationalWiki hosts many conflicts, churning within and occasionally rising to the surface. The conflict between hardline atheists and the more moderate members is fading from prominence. The conflict between those who want principled rules and those who like being able to do whatever they want is on the rise. Factional conflicts between prominent editors and their allies dominated the wiki for a time. Then there's the elephant in the room; a quiet conflict only hinted at, but arguably the source of all the others: the silent struggle between those view RationalWiki as a place to hang out, have fun, and harass Conservapedia, versus those who those want RationalWiki to become Wikipedia with a SPOV.

When it comes to resolving these conflicts, RationalWiki doesn't really know how -- they have to use Headless Chicken Mode to sort things out.

We help them by offering an outside view of the infighting.

This article attempts to describe and analyze the situation and ask if such a bias is likely – it makes no effort to say what the situation “should” be.

We need to consider two elements: The Editing Policies, and the User Base.

Editing policies

The editing policy is most clearly laid out in the RW article, “What is a RationalWiki article”. An initial point to note is the instruction that:

• "RationalWiki is not neutral point of view." "As a site we have a point of view, and that point of view is that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with."

Subsequently editors are told:

• to feel free to slant the content towards the goals of the site.
• that it is not necessary to supply references for all entries.
• that RationalWiki is original research.
• to draw (additional) conclusions not clearly stated in a source.

Given that the Scientific Method is wholly naturalistic and explicitly excludes supernatural or religious explanations, this POV will presumably eliminate any religious explanations for phenomenon. There is no obligation to present alternative points of view opposed to, or apart from, the scientific method – indeed they would seem to be explicitly excluded. ← read the entire article