WMN: t3_2ujfms_t1_co9jdrr

[TITLE]

CMV:RationalWiki is just as bad as Conservapedia, and both are bad for society as a whole

[TacticalStrategy]

This idea came to me by watching two people futilely attempting to convince each other of their point by continually citing articles from those two wikis, but it applies equally to any and all other politically 'themed' sources. The creation of separate sources for people to get information without leaving their bubble is a fundamentally bad thing, regardless of any wiki being more factually accurate (showing my bias a bit here). It would be better for people to be forced to defend their views by going to battle over crucial Wikipedia articles, and therefore see the arguments of the other side. In short, my view about this can be summed up in the following two premises: 1. The concept of a wiki requires universality to be useful, and Wikipedia currently is a power which it is practically useless to compete with (by creating one's own wikis) 2. Therefore, the only reason people create such wikis is because they can't get their way on Wikipedia, and are metaphorically refusing to play and taking their ideas home. 3. This promotes close-mindedness by 'protecting' people from opposing ideas. 4. Closed-mindedness is a bad things, because it restricts public discourse. 5. The content of the wikis is irrelevant - even if they are potentially more accurate than Wikipedia, creating a new wiki is inherently inferior to fighting an edit war. EDIT: I'm submitting this relatively late in the evening, so don't be worried if I don't respond to your comment within a few hours. I will look at this thread again in the morning and respond as much as possible. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[anonoman925]

Why are sources of information bad? People are bad. Why are drugs bad? People who abuse drugs are bad. How can something without anima be bad?

[TacticalStrategy]

The creation of new sources of information for the purpose of avoiding looking at other viewpoints is bad.

[TBFProgrammer]

All of your points are correct, at least from the point of view of the editor. However, there are other things we could state in place of point three that would change our take on things, especially if we wish to consider the point of view of society as a whole. This is one of the issues with powerpoint's "everything as a bullet-ted list" format, but I digress. Instead of saying that point 2 promotes close-mindedness, we could also observe that it functions as a way to protect wikipedia's NPOV: 1. The concept of a wiki requires universality to be useful, and Wikipedia currently is a power which it is practically useless to compete with (by creating one's own wikis) 2. Therefore, the only reason people create such wikis is because they can't get their way on Wikipedia, and are metaphorically refusing to play and taking their ideas home. 3. Following this reasoning, a banned editor will often turn to one of these wikis, rather than trying to subvert the ban. 4. Banned editors leaving is a good thing, as they presumably wouldn't be banned if they weren't causing disruption. 5. The content of the wikis is irrelevant - even if they are potentially more accurate than Wikipedia, no one in the wider populace will prefer them over the Wikipedia entry. Basically, I disagree that biased editors preferring an inferior method for spreading their bias is necessarily a bad thing.

[TacticalStrategy]

So you're saying that they are helpful because they filter out people who are already unwilling to change their view?

[sunburnd]

[STA-CITE]>The concept of a wiki requires universality to be useful, and Wikipedia currently is a power which it is practically useless to compete with (by creating one's own wikis) [END-CITE]This statement relies on Wikipedia an other wiki based sites having the *same* goals. The *goal* of RationalWiki is different than that of wikipedia, so the content reflects that. [STA-CITE]>Therefore, the only reason people create such wikis is because they can't get their way on Wikipedia, and are metaphorically refusing to play and taking their ideas home. [END-CITE]Or they have *different* goals. Wiki is essentially a software package and may or may not be used as an encyclopedia. [STA-CITE]>Following this reasoning, a banned editor will often turn to one of these wikis, rather than trying to subvert the ban. [END-CITE]<Citation Needed[STA-CITE]>. And often not? Different sites have different goals. In which case it could be that the editor being banned happened to be on the *wrong* site to begin with as their *goals* differed from that of Wikipedia. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Banned editors leaving is a good thing, as they presumably wouldn't be banned if they weren't causing disruption. [END-CITE]Presuming that the disruption was actually related to including bad or faulty information. It may be they were just dicks and no body wanted to work with them. [STA-CITE]>The content of the wikis is irrelevant - even if they are potentially more accurate than Wikipedia, no one in the wider populace will prefer them over the Wikipedia entry. [END-CITE]No one really *prefers* Wikipedia. What they prefer is to have a well written and concise articles that are properly referenced. If they want a well written properly sourced article with the goal of addressing pseudoscience then RationalWiki would be a natural choice. If they want sources that coincide with a particular Conservative viewpoint then perhaps Conservipedia. I would say that all three have their places and are as strong as their references, links and footnotes.

[TBFProgrammer]

I'm saying they are helpful to Wikipedia because of that, and to society as a whole to some percentage of the degree that preserving NPOV on Wikipedia is helpful. I'd prefer to see resolution through discussion on the talk pages compared to either edit-warring or exodus, but between the two exodus seems to be the better.

[TacticalStrategy]

∆. OK, they can be useful for weeding out radicals from the main system.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TBFProgrammer. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/TBFProgrammer)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[Tombot3000]

Most people don't even know of these websites, let alone read them. The ones who do go on there are looking to confirm views they already believe. Because of this, the sites themselves effect almost no change on the outside world and thus aren't actually harmful to society. They're just another knife in the drawer for people who already fit into a certain category (like Fox news, or the Huffington Post)

[TacticalStrategy]

The fact that they have almost no effect does not invalidate my argument. The fact that they exist at all is harmful.

[Raborn]

How are they harmful to society if their affect is effectively nothing as you seem to implicitly accept. If they're bad as a whole, then they should have far reaching affects that actual damage society and not a small portion of it. Your suggestion otherwise runs directly contrary to your views.

[TacticalStrategy]

See above.

[Raborn]

Again, this is a contradiction. You state in your original premise that they're harmful to society. Small pockets of people are not the whole, this is a fallacy. Either it affects society at large, or it's about as bad as a scrape on the body of society as opposed to a nasty gash.

[TacticalStrategy]

It doesn't have to affect literally everyone to 'harm society'.

[Raborn]

No, but it has to effect enough of them. You dismissed them for an apparently negligible amount earlier, so what is it? A few? Enough? Most? Barely any?

[TacticalStrategy]

I don't see why it is a fallacy nor why it contradicts my view. Unemployment rate in the US is only 6%, does that mean it's not a 'societal' problem?

[Raborn]

Because when people are unemployed there is a societal lack of jobs which leads to more than just being unemployed. It creates a burden on the rest of us via unemployment benefits, crime, etc. In what way does your view affect society at large and not simply a relatively small number of people that make use of them? Again, I liken it to a small scrape opposed to a deep gash. They can be about the same in coverage, but the gash will really affect your body in a meaningful way. I'm not going to deny that there is an affect, you can point to anything for that to be true,but is it meaningful?

[TacticalStrategy]

It's not relevant. You're attempting to show that the effect isn't large enough to care about, which is not the same thing as saying the problem doesn't exist. According to [this page](http://atomrank.com/stats/conservapedia.com), CP gets two million pageviews per month, and RW gets twelve million. Is it an overwhelmingly large number? No, but it's something. Ignoring problems because they're small is a bad policy.

[Tombot3000]

How is something harmful if it has no effect? How is something bad for society if it doesn't change anything about that society?

[TacticalStrategy]

It *doesn't* have no effect. It has an effect on the people who use those sites, and on the people who use other sites, from the lack of their input. Also, if those people vote or make other decisions, the keeping of misconceptions can have huge effects - for an example, see the ridiculously preventable measles outbreak in the United States. The people who refuse to vaccinate are products of just the sort of bubble these sites create.

[Tombot3000]

I think you are reversing cause and effect here. Neutral people aren't being converted by these websites, idealogues are depositing their views there. If anything, the overall effect of these sites is to isolate extremists and lessen their influence from more mainstream sources like Wikipedia. Also the second part of your answer conflates holding these views with the existence of websites which have those views posted on them. Rationalwiki/conservapedia existing is not the reason anyone votes a certain way - you're not appreciating the importance of human agency and someone actually taking a viewpoint to heart and acting on it. And again, people aren't randomly happening upon these websites, they're either going there to reinforce their own view (common) or being directed there by people looking to introduce them to their chosen ideology (rare).

[TacticalStrategy]

[STA-CITE]>Neutral people aren't being converted by these websites [END-CITE]But people who feel just slightly one way or another can be made radicals, and radicals can be made to feel secure. In essence, I'm in favor of forcing people to deal with people who have opposing points of view. This is (IMO) the best defense against radicalism because it drowns radicals out (or maybe even changes their mind) and makes it easier for those closer to the fence to make informed decisions.

[Tombot3000]

That isn't how people work, though. Being exposed to opposing viewpoints is actually more likely to reinforce your views than to change them. It'd be nice if that weren't the case, but it is.

[TacticalStrategy]

[STA-CITE]>Being exposed to opposing viewpoints is actually more likely to reinforce your views than to change them. [END-CITE]Is it more likely to reinforce your views than never seeing the opposing view in the first place?

[Tombot3000]

It has been shown to be this way. You can search for "confirmation bias" "persistence of discredited beliefs" and "primacy effect of memory" for some more info. Basically, whatever gets stuck in your head first tends to stay there, even in light of opposing evidence, and can even become cemented in a stronger way in the face of opposition. That said, my point before was that these sites may convert a small number of people, but their overall effect is to isolate extremists looking for confirmation. It actually lowers the number of neutral, open parties exposed to extreme rather than balanced information.

[TacticalStrategy]

I know what confirmation bias is. I agreed below that the sites can siphon off extremists, but they can also harden the minds of those leaning one way or another - the 'Fox News' effect, if you will. So, they turn otherwise changeable people into extremists.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> Therefore, the only reason people create such wikis is because they can't get their way on Wikipedia, and are metaphorically refusing to play and taking their ideas home. [END-CITE]In contrast to Conservapedia, RationalWiki [does not actually claim to be an encyclopedia](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:What_is_a_RationalWiki_article%3F#RationalWiki_is_not_an_encyclopedia). [STA-CITE]> This promotes close-mindedness by 'protecting' people from opposing ideas. [END-CITE]Opposing ideas need to be analyzed before they can be properly addressed or criticized. The reader is not protected from those ideas, although one obviously needs to be careful to avoid strawman views. I think they can both be useful sources, even if it's specifically to learn about the views from a particular perspective. [STA-CITE]> The content of the wikis is irrelevant [END-CITE]I don't agree. There are many topics that can be evaluated and judged on their own merit and they can also be used to get to external sources. [STA-CITE]> creating a new wiki is inherently inferior to fighting an edit war. [END-CITE]I'd prefer to have multiple views available to choose from, than only the view that "won" by committee decision.

[TacticalStrategy]

[STA-CITE]>RationalWiki does not actually claim to be an encyclopedia. [END-CITE]That may be so, but it still qualifies in my view as a 'competitor' to WP and CP because its content is not unique. I say this for two reasons: 1. In an *extremely* scientific study, I clicked the 'random page' button 20 times on RW and made a search for the article title on WP. In every case, WP not only had an article, but also a longer and more thorough one. 2. RW has articles on things which seem to be irrelevant to the main topic of 'rationalism', such as articles for countries. [STA-CITE]>Opposing ideas need to be analyzed before they can be properly addressed or criticized. The reader is not protected from those ideas [END-CITE]Aren't they, though? Because they're on their own wiki dedicated to mocking those ideas? [STA-CITE]>There are many topics that can be evaluated and judged on their own merit [END-CITE]Perhaps from your point of view, but I think you'll find people who disagree with what you consider most fundamental. [STA-CITE]>I'd prefer to have multiple views available to choose from, than only the view that "won" by committee decision. [END-CITE]I think this makes all the views less accurate, but to each his own.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> That may be so, but it still qualifies in my view as a 'competitor' to WP and CP because its content is not unique. [END-CITE]So, many of the article titles are not unique. What they actually write about it, *is* quite different from Wikipedia in many cases though, and that's the point. I think you might be reading too much into its wiki format, which is just a platform to make editing easier. What if the entire site had the format of a blog or an e-book instead? [STA-CITE]> RW has articles on things which seem to be irrelevant to the main topic of 'rationalism', such as articles for countries. [END-CITE]Are you sure? It seems that for each country, RW doesn't simply list geographic and demographic facts about the country and its inhabitants, like Wikipedia would. Instead, they specifically touch on areas that are in conflict with "science, skepticism, and critical thinking". [STA-CITE]> Aren't they, though? Because they're on their own wiki dedicated to mocking those ideas? [END-CITE]If those ideas are mocked, then by definition the reader is exposed to them. [STA-CITE]> Perhaps from your point of view, but I think you'll find people who disagree with what you consider most fundamental. [END-CITE]I'm not sure what you're saying here? Even if someone decides that they disagree with what is said, they can still evaluate and judge an article on its merits, or take parts of it as starting points for further investigation. [STA-CITE]> I think this makes all the views less accurate, but to each his own. [END-CITE]Wikipedia has its own issues, like [systemic bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias), [deletion of articles that are not "notable"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia) etc. Trusting one single source surely puts one at risk of closed-mindedness to other views as well, and didn't you say that you want people to be exposed to opposing ideas?

[czerilla]

[STA-CITE]> I think this makes all the views less accurate, but to each his own. [END-CITE]How?

[TacticalStrategy]

You lose the benefits of synthesis.

[czerilla]

Only if the views are isolated from each other. Making them available in public wikis is a good step to offer different positions to synthesize from. I don't see how reducing the number of positions to consider helps with the accuracy of the position you present.

[TacticalStrategy]

Because the fact that there are public wikis is indication of a lack of synthesis - the points of view are going out to create divided sources rather than being synthesized.

[czerilla]

But it is aggregation of points. If you want to synthesize the positions with others, you need to collect and present them. Sure the RW may be one side of a particular issue, but it helps inform your position or form an opinion and address (e.g. rebut) the points of the position you disagree with. How would you represent those it in a single monolithic source. The synthesis you speak of doesn't have to happen in every source/wiki, it can happen in the readers mind, if all sides are able to present themselves to him!

[TacticalStrategy]

If people are reading all the wikis, there isn't any reason not to have all the information in one place. If they're reading only one wiki, they're inside the 'bubble' and not getting any synthesis of ideas regardless.

[czerilla]

I can see your point. This goes into your earlier point about favoring edit wars to splitting the community. My point is that these bubbles tend to emerge even within the joint community through majority consensus. The question is if a position that can't establish a majority should not be represented at all. Obviously this includes blatantly false positions as well, but it helps for them to be represented and substantiated, so we can evaluate them fairly. I don't see that this is possible within Wikipedia and therefore other wikis are needed to provide that platform. The danger of those wikis becoming bubbles is real, but so is the danger for you, if you only consider what Wikipedia accepts.

[TacticalStrategy]

IMO this is what talk pages are for. It's like having a parliament rather than having two countries - people have to come to an agreement.

[Account9726]

I do not believe wikis require universality at all. There are wikis for specific video games, television series, interests, and so on. The material they cover would not be considered notable by Wikipedia proper and deleted, so they turn to these other, more specific wikis. It isn't a matter of "not getting your way," it is a matter of having a platform where an exhaustive article on "Ruby's Knife" or variants of the game "Mafia" are appropriate, for those who want to make and read such an article. Even for politics this can apply. Rationalwiki is not an alternative to wikipedia, it is a wiki for rationalist arguments and discussion. Just like Encyclopedia Dramatica is for otherwise non-notable internet drama, or Memory Alpha is for shockingly comprehensive Star Trek stuff, it is a place to store and disseminate a certain subset of information. It does not have to be more accurate, it does not intend to be more accurate, it simply covers different material. EDIT: I should add Rationalwiki [explicitly states it is not an encyclopedia](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki#RationalWiki_is_not_an_encyclopedia), as it encourages original research and discussion. [Conservapedia](http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia), on the other hand, DOES claim to be an encyclopedia, and so would be the only one applicable to your argument.

[TacticalStrategy]

Alright, fair enough for the specific game and movie wikis, but that isn't what I'm referring to. As for RW, I would argue that while it isn't a 'replacement' for Wikipedia in the same was CP is, it clearly intends to contradict WP in many cases - one prominent example is on the historicity of Jesus.

[Account9726]

Would you say someone who writes a book about Jesus is "promoting closed mindedness" because they didn't try to get their ideas directly included in the Encyclopedia Britanica instead? Of course not. The encyclopedia is not the place for new research, discussing personal theories, or making an argument for or against anything, it is a neutral reporter of verifiable and notable facts. That is its purpose, but that is not the purpose of all books. So then, what is the problem with having a place where that sort of material can exist, just as non-encylopedia books do? It isn't a matter of an "echo chamber," it is that if you wanted to make a long list of counterarguments or evidence arguing for something or whatever you simply can't within Wikipedias design. That isn't its purpose. So then, why is there a problem with using their software for a different purpose, whether it is RationalWiki or cooperative writing like SCP Foundation?

[TacticalStrategy]

I think if someone actually believed their own findings, they'd want to have it included everywhere. If you thought you had conclusive evidence one way or another, wouldn't you want everyone to know?

[Account9726]

The whole point is that you *can't*. Original Research is [absolutely forbidden by Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). It isn't about fighting to convince people, you just flat, universally, are not allowed to do that any more than you are allowed to write a bunch of SCP creepypasta as Wikipedia articles. So, people make other forums for that. Forums where it is allowed because, again, encyclopedias are not the only books and not everything belongs in them.

[TacticalStrategy]

[STA-CITE]>The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—*for which no reliable, published sources exist* [END-CITE]If you wrote a book and it was published, you can cite it.

[Account9726]

And the SCP people could self publish books and mail them to each other. Of course, that takes a long time to update with feedback. And would be an inefficient form of communication. If only there were some sort of online platform, that anyone could edit within certain restrictions, where you could collaboratively work on and update such things... And even if people follow your advice to not be "closed minded" and instead write an entire book by themselves and get it published (by a reputable house mind you, that is one of the three aspects of [reliable sources](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources)\) it STILL couldn't be cited if it was about a non-notable topic, for example in-depth information on specific individuals of low universal notability. I mean, you are literally saying that people are "closed minded" because they are using wikipedia software instead of becoming book authors then getting into "deathmatches" on wikipedia to force their views to the front. I don't think that is a particularly reasonable view.

[TacticalStrategy]

I don't see how it's unreasonable at all. I'm calling them closed-minded because they feel the need to create extra sources of information to validate their own point of view.

[YellowKingNoMask]

Well, while it could be that each are somehow equally biased and that each makes the same mistakes to the same degree, just in opposite directions; it's also possible that one is simply more accurate in describing reality than the other. While compromise can be important, the mean or average of two views is not necessarily the truth. To make an example, a wiki on the shape of the earth that includes dissent from flat-earthers might seem superior to one that did not; after all, it includes more points of view. But the earth-shape wiki that just talks about the spheriod shape would be more accurate and superior, because it is actually *correct* in that regard. More and different information can be better, but it is possible to overdo it in that regard.

[WhenSnowDies]

[STA-CITE]>Well, while it could be that each are somehow equally biased and that each makes the same mistakes to the same degree, just in opposite directions; it's also possible that one is simply more accurate in describing reality than the other. [END-CITE]That's precisely the problem with RationalWiki, it declares itself and its view "rational", which is a divisive and almost delusional level of bias called [naive realism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_%28psychology%29), a sort of bias that borders on zealotry. [STA-CITE]>While compromise can be important, the mean or average of two views is not necessarily the truth. [END-CITE]More importantly is self-awareness, or understanding that you're not operating on a high enough tier of information or conclusive understanding of it to become enchanted with your own perspective and start taking everything [a pirori.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori) This is reflected in an essential programming of advanced non-axiomatic reasoning systems: [STA-CITE]>*“Work under the assumption of insufficient knowledge and resources.”* [END-CITE]This is programmed to avoid things like the [Dunning-Kruger Effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect), naive realism, and other very volatile and regressive reasoning. Interesting that "Rational"Wiki and the "skeptic" movement has very little concern for these things. Like any esoteric sectarian truth movement, they turn their aggression outwards. The "rational" movement attacks everybody *else's* real or imagined irrationality, not unlike the church targets the sinner, heathen, and heretic--both aloof to their own internal corruption which can border on absolute, due to the assumption that they've mastered the desired object (reason, holiness, etc.). [STA-CITE]>To make an example, a wiki on the shape of the earth that includes dissent from flat-earthers might seem superior to one that did not; after all, it includes more points of view. But the earth-shape wiki that just talks about the spheriod shape would be more accurate and superior, because it is actually correct in that regard. More and different information can be better, but it is possible to overdo it in that regard. [END-CITE]Flat earthers are a great example! Rather than trying to *understand* them and draw some insight on them, the self, and peripheral things, RationalWiki just circlejerks about how smart it is: [STA-CITE]>*"The flat earth theory can be falsified on any clear night an hour or two after sunset by observing satellites in the sky, provided that one accepts either Occam's razor or common sense as valid stances. Plus sanity. Unless governments around the world are launching one-shot satellites every night to maintain the conspiracy, a flat earth simply won't support a constellation of orbiting objects.*" [END-CITE]"Simply" regarding very nuanced information about orbits that folks don't actually understand a priori just by looking at the night's sky..? They consider the information so obvious that you're "insane" if you think otherwise. Is it true that sanely looking at the moon will cause you to understand the Earth isn't flat..? RationalWiki is incorrect, and even calls the idea of a spherical Earth simple by invoking Occam's razor when, in reality, a flat Earth is the more obvious choice from a terrestrial perspective. RationalWiki is being [self-]deceptive--it's using a truth to support chaotic and anti-informational assumptions about things. Interestingly the flat-earthers make a good point. Not regarding the shape of the planet, but the nature of information. Many of the flat-earthers' views are perfectly plausible if you accept their premises, which aren't many or unthinkable (e.g. the government can lie), and the flat Earth is actually more accessible than a spherical earth (it's easier to see or sense that the earth is flat, from the ground). I remember the astrophysicists at [Sixty Symbols](https://www.youtube.com/user/sixtysymbols) admiring the flat earthers for this and for their creativity, because the solid reasoning and use of mathematics that technically "worked" in their explanations illustrated an actual issue in science. The issue being that not having access to or [knowing to] accept all the facts can lead to radically different explanations for phenomena that are factually wrong (like the flat earth)--while the explanations themselves (day/night cycles and seasons on the flat earth) would actually work if the premise was right. The example I remember Sixty Symbols giving was Newton vs. Einstein, in which Newton had many explanations and much math worked out for physics--processes which were demonstrably true. That is, until Einstein came along and factored in light speed and revealed relativity, demonstrating that Newton's premise was wrong (like the flat earth) but his support was right (like how day/night would work on it) on the limited information (sublight theories). It was the incoming facts that rendered Newton false, but otherwise Newton could prove he was right on the micro. I remember Sixty Symbols mentioning that current theories on Quantum Physics and aspects of astrophysics will very likely be subject to this phenomenon that Newton experienced. There are several explanations and theories for bizarre particle phenomena today, and it's expected that we'll find them wrong as we gain more information, like it was with Newton. This is why Hawking was chasing the "theory of everything". In astrophysics, renormalization and paradoxes are evidence of these "Newtonian Holes" in knowledge leading to incorrect conclusions that "worked". The underlying idea being that reason alone just isn't enough and one must always continue experimenting and pushing and testing even accepted truths and finding them false in the bigger picture. In other words, all of science is "flat earthing" and looking for more data so as to update and take one small step back and see more. It must always do this. RationalWiki and "skeptics" don't know this because they're not professionally involved with knowledge or exploration, just bandwagoning with pop culture. Therefore I would agree with OP that RationalWiki and self-declared "skeptic" movements are divisive and anti-informational in this way.

[BenIncognito]

RationalWiki is more like a tongue-in-cheek joke than an actual source for finding out if the Earth is really flat or not.

[WhenSnowDies]

Not everybody gets the joke. Some people think like this, you optimist you.

[Andoverian]

> Is it true that sanely looking at the moon will cause you to understand the Earth isn't flat..? Yes, actually, by observing lunar eclipses. Ancient astronomers saw that the Earth's shadow on the moon was always round, but if the Earth was some flat shape it should occasionally appear edge-on, leaving a very different shadow. They could either assume the Earth was a disk that always lined up perfectly for every lunar eclipse to leave a round shadow, or they could assume that the Earth was a sphere that would leave a round shadow in any orientation. This explanation might not be obvious to everyone right away, but it is based on facts and logic. 'Rational' does not mean 'so simple that anyone can figure it out on their own', it just means the reasoning is based on facts and logic. > RationalWiki is incorrect, and even calls the idea of a spherical Earth simple by invoking Occam's razor when, in reality, a flat Earth is the more obvious choice from a terrestrial perspective. Earlier in your response you warned of the dangers of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but here you seem to be encouraging it. By limiting themselves to one perspective, and proclaiming themselves correct anyway, believers in a flat Earth are falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The authors of the RationalWiki page, on the other hand, prove they have taken this alternate viewpoint into account by mentioning one or two reasons why it is incorrect. > The underlying idea being that reason alone just isn't enough and one must always continue experimenting and pushing and testing even accepted truths and finding them false in the bigger picture. > ... self-declared "skeptic" movements are divisive and anti-informational... Questioning accepted truths is exactly what it means to be a skeptic. How can you praise it in one paragraph but insult it in another?

[WhenSnowDies]

[STA-CITE]> Yes, actually, by observing lunar eclipses. Ancient astronomers saw that the Earth's shadow on the moon was always round, but if the Earth was some flat shape it should occasionally appear edge-on, leaving a very different shadow. They could either assume the Earth was a disk that always lined up perfectly for every lunar eclipse to leave a round shadow, or they could assume that the Earth was a sphere that would leave a round shadow in any orientation. This explanation might not be obvious to everyone right away, but it is based on facts and logic. 'Rational' does not mean 'so simple that anyone can figure it out on their own', it just means the reasoning is based on facts and logic. [END-CITE]Yes but all the facts are not always available. There's no reason to think that the Earth's flat shadow *must* land edge-on at any point, or that the shadow on the moon is cast by the Earth, or that the moon isn't itself bio luminescent going through phases. You're cheating to a certain extent in your reason via hindsight. [STA-CITE]>Earlier in your response you warned of the dangers of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but here you seem to be encouraging it. By limiting themselves to one perspective, and proclaiming themselves correct anyway, believers in a flat Earth are falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The authors of the RationalWiki page, on the other hand, prove they have taken this alternate viewpoint into account by mentioning one or two reasons why it is incorrect. [END-CITE]I don't think anybody would seriously believe that RationalWiki understands the premise of the alternate viewpoint or why believers in the flat earth would believe, beyond being "insane" as RationalWiki says explicitly. [STA-CITE]>Questioning accepted truths is exactly what it means to be a skeptic. How can you praise it in one paragraph but insult it in another? [END-CITE]Skepticism doesn't mean questioning or disbelief, it means suspending belief until a certain burden of proof is met. I described RationalWiki as anti-informational, but not for being skeptical or testing, but for self-praise, naive realism, and fundamentally not "believing" on understanding the information, but on following pop culture and modern science without actually understanding it, and claiming to understand it. The ignorance of modern "skepticism" is thinly veiled.

[Paradigmist]

This is the "Golden Mean Fallacy", by the way.

[TacticalStrategy]

[STA-CITE]>the mean or average of two views is not necessarily the truth [END-CITE]This is not my argument. I'm arguing that people should have to champion their views to have them represented - a deathmatch rather than a synthesis of ideas.

[Andoverian]

But a deathmatch isn't necessarily a better way to find truth. At least for encyclopedic knowledge, there is a single truth independent of how many people believe it, or how good they are at convincing others. A truth is still a truth even if nobody knows it.

[TacticalStrategy]

[STA-CITE]>A truth is still a truth even if nobody knows it. [END-CITE]I completely agree. I think the best way to get as close to that truth as possible is testing ideas and evidence against each other to see what holds up.

[Andoverian]

By calling that process a 'deathmatch' you make it sound like the eventual determination of truth will come down to individual skill in that one moment, and one of the two viewpoints must be absolutely correct. I'm reminded of a scientific debate from the 19th century where two astronomers were publicly arguing over what we now know as galaxies in a format similar to the 'deathmatch ' you describe. I don't remember all the details, but one thought they were patches of dust within our own galaxy, and the other thought they were outside the galaxy based on faulty reasoning. Both had very good points to both support their view and disprove the other, but they were both missing a key piece of information that wouldn't be discovered for several years. Because of this, the scientist who thought they were inside our own galaxy 'won' the debate, even though we now know that is false.

[TacticalStrategy]

All generations do the best they can. We are obliged to find the best truth that is possible for us to find. Are you saying it would have been better for the astronomers to do nothing? Both were arguing for what they believed was the truth, and both were wrong, but not by not seeing evidence which was there nor by willful ignorance but because of the total absence of evidence.

[wutcnbrowndo4u]

[STA-CITE]> I'm arguing that people should have to champion their views to have them represented - a deathmatch rather than a synthesis of ideas. [END-CITE]I'm not sure about the scope of the argument you're making here, so I'll try to clarify. Even if we say that rationalWiki and Conservapedia are equal in every other way and thus remove them from consideration, there's still the question of factual accuracy (to the extent it can be measured). Do you think that a "deathmatch" (i.e. a straight universal vote) would be an appropriate way to select which medical treatments are considered sound and effective? Or a good way to decide the acceptable level of arsenic in your water, or the correct angles and supports required when building a suspension bridge? To me it seems like a far better approach to take a more rigorous approach towards ensuring correctness (as much as possible). Inasmuch as RationalWiki is built around the philosophy of rigor, it seems like it has a clear advantage over Conservapedia in this regard.

[dgerard]

[STA-CITE]> Inasmuch as RationalWiki is built around the philosophy of rigor, [END-CITE][yes, well. \*cough\*](http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Essay:I_thought_this_was_supposed_to_be_RATIONALWiki)

[wutcnbrowndo4u]

I don't read RationalWiki; I've found myself there a handful of times. I still don't think it's much of a stretch to say that it's philosophy is more explicitly based in a respect for fact and rigor than Conservapedia's is. The focus of my comment was this comparison, and "inasmuch" means "to the extent that" (i.e. I wasn't implying that RationalWiki is an absolute paragon of factual accuracy and rigor).

[TacticalStrategy]

When I say 'deathmatch', of course I don't mean a vote - I know as well as you do that the grand majority of people don't have any idea what they're talking about. I'm talking testing ideas and evidence against each other to see what holds up.

[wutcnbrowndo4u]

Oh interesting, I guess I misunderstood the point you were making. This only mitigates the problem to a certain degree: if there was a single, canonical, reliable, _universally agreed-upon_ way to show that something was a "fact", then there would be no problem. The fact that there are Talk pages on Wikipedia (and the fact that they are very active overall) means that even among those who broadly agree with the concept of testing ideas and evidence, there can be disagreement about how to go about doing that. Something like RationalWiki may simply have decided that Wikipedia's processes around this lean too far towards the democracy vs technocracy, and that they'll approach the same goal of "testing ideas and evidence" in a different way. I don't think it's unfair to say that Conservapedia leans less towards the "testing ideas and evidence" philosophy.

[TacticalStrategy]

Perhaps, but what other way do we have to get as close to fact as possible?

[dgerard]

Hi, I'm from RationalWiki! I'm sorry you don't like our site, but I shall endeavour to be helpful. RationalWiki isn't an encyclopedia. It started as somewhere for a bunch of people to have fun on an editable website. Along the way it's evolved into something like a provider of skeptical resources, with a bit of fun on the way. (And quite a lot of awful rubbish, but [our best stuff](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Contents) is pretty good we think.) [Rationalwiki's explanation of itself.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki) To answer your points: [1.] A [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki) does not in fact require universality to be useful. Specialist wikis abound. The [MediaWiki](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki) software is open-source, so people can and do run *all sorts* of things on it. The original WikiWikiWeb site was the Portland Patterns Repository, an extremely specialist site about software design patterns, started in 1995 (six years before Wikipedia). And it isn't even a specialist *encyclopedia* - it includes *a couple of decades' worth* of long, rambling discussions on these and related topics. Your claim as to what wikis are is incorrect about the very first wiki ever. The original conception of the World Wide Web was to be editable; wikis go some way toward achieving this. [2.] Wikipedia is by far the largest wiki in the world. But it is not the first wiki, and it is not the defining wiki in fact, even if it is the main (or only) one people know of. If you have *any* use for a mass-editable website, whether an encyclopedia or anything else, a wiki may be a good tool for it. In the course of my day job, I administer multiple wikis, some internal (intranet wikis where we play Massively Multiplayer Online Notepad with stuff we need to know in the daily course of our jobs), some external (a site where we define our website API, which is edited by very few people under strict rules). None of these in any way resemble an encyclopedia. [3], [4.] This can be a problem, but it's hard to force people out of a filter bubble. People like the freedom to ramble on about stuff. Imagine if there was only one big forum on the Internet, and therefore Reddit was closed down because the subReddits were considered too much like filter bubbles and kept people from being sufficiently exposed to different views. [Usenet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet) still exists, but nobody is going to shut down Reddit in its favour. Nor would you shut down all other newspapers, magazines and blogs because the New York Times exists. [5.] This presumes its conclusion: that all other wikis exist as shadows of Wikipedia. This is simply factually incorrect, both historically and in the present day. RationalWiki is not a shadow-Wikipedia. I edit both, for many years; they are extremely different places. And wikis themselves are *remarkably* versatile collaborative writing tools. As useful as Wikipedia is, their usefulness goes *tremendously* beyond encyclopedias.

[the_matriarchy]

Rationalwiki has some decent articles, but I find it infuriating when it stops being about "How to be rational" and starts being opinion pieces from the perspective of the author. Certainly, the site should refrain from political discussion outright. There are no clear-cut political truths as there are scientific ones; scathing reviews of Libertarians/Conservatives/MRA's/whatever does the wiki no favours - it turns RW from a wiki about science into a wiki about whatever mainstream leftists happen to believe.

[dgerard]

We have a [page](http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Essay:I_thought_this_was_supposed_to_be_RATIONALWiki) about that.

[the_matriarchy]

That actually didn't address any of my concerns. It just gave some examples of people criticizing Rationalwiki's political slant and explained how the word 'rational' can be misused. My point is this: If the wiki has a political standpoint, then it is abusing its status as a 'rational' wiki to be a 'leftist' wiki. Leftists do not and should not have a monopoly over the term 'rationality'.

[TacticalStrategy]

Hi, thank you for commenting! [1]Specialist wikis were brought up before, and I agree that is a hole in my view, but they aren't the focus of it because adding more detail than a general encyclopedia would allow or require (ie about specific areas or fictional universes) does not create 'competition' with the main wiki. [2]As for the definition of a wiki, I would argue that my definition is relatively accurate for *today*. I am relatively young and did not see the early days of the Internet, so my perspective is mostly from the modern era of the total dominance and mostly-trustworthiness of WP. [3][4] I think it would be better to shut down Usenet in favor of Reddit. :P Though on point, I do think that is a major problem and deserves addressing. My favorite SRs are DebateAnX subs as well as CMV itself, because I think the *primary* advantage of the internet is putting ordinary people in contact with other ordinary people all across the world who have very different perspectives - giving everyone, in essence, a perspective well-rounded by worldwide contact. Also, I didn't mean to imply that I support the unilateral shutting down of sites like RW or CP - just that they should be ignored. As for newspapers, I think the Wiki is a different type of media because it allows editing by everyone, whereas newspapers are, well, newspapers. That said, I think it would be *great* if we could have just one really good newspaper with all the radicalism of Fox News and Huffpost filtering each other out, so we could all get a balanced view of world events for once. [5]Premise 5 is based on Premise 1. As for RW as a 'shadow-wiki', I am well aware that they are different places; perhaps most obvious is that Wikipedia makes an attempt to be serious while RW is a bit tongue-in cheek. However, I believe that it still in a large way attempts to replace parts of WP it sees as insufficiently correct. Let me repost something from below to clarify: [STA-CITE]>That may be so, but it still qualifies in my view as a 'competitor' to WP and CP because its content is not unique. I say this for two reasons: In an extremely scientific study, I clicked the 'random page' button 20 times on RW and made a search for the article title on WP. In every case, WP not only had an article, but also a longer and more thorough one. In addition, RW has articles on things which seem to be irrelevant to the main topic of 'rationalism', such as articles for countries. [END-CITE]RW, just as much as CP, attempts to replace WP articles with their own, for one reason or another.