Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki

#1
Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki
I’ve been exposing harassing behaviors in collaborative communities ever since and began to publish Wikipedia, we have a problem.

Words like 'pseudoscientist!' 'woo supporter'! get thrown around by these communities to individuals they believe are writing or researching in a number of alternative health or mind/body topics.

But to apply those terms to people who are making editorial arguments about biographical facts on an encyclopedia?

If someone was to discover who I am for the first time via my biography on Rational Wiki - I would look like a crank or a nut ball. As an entrepreneur, I can’t tell you how utterly annoying it is when I have to explain my ‘Rational Wiki’ article entry to an investor or a client.

I decided to find out a few days ago to finally see what they offer for resolution and what process they use to arrive at it. I went to their site and this caught my attention.




Great I thought. I absolutely disagree with Rational Wiki’s publication being used to leverage ‘payback’ on me for anonymously editing a Wikipedia article. After all - they claim to be a publisher of ‘evidenced based facts’, so they have set the high standard for themselves as a publisher.

So I clicked on the link ‘constructive dialogue’ and came to the next page.


So I did. I choose option #3 and I wrote an essay called ‘Rational Wiki revisited, a critique’ and posted it to their website on April 15th, 2015 - just two days ago.

So I spent two days chatting with them on their deletion vote - I confronted each comment made with critical questioning. I comprised the essay to address the various comments and opinions they had, and even adjusted some of my own statements based on what they told me. I asked them questions to each new argument twist they gave me. Their argument closed with comparing me to Nazi’s defending themselves at the Nuremberg trials, Godwin’s Law and all.

They then deleted the essay from Rational Wiki from all of the archives. As if it was never there.

I archived the essay here. It never received a completed edit so apologies for typos or a few rants on sentences. Oye.

And thus concluded the ‘reasoned debate’ about ‘evidenced based’ facts with the juvenile Rational Wiki community.

This article is also posted here: http://romeviharo.tumblr.com/post/116776035715/rational-wiki-deletes-essay-criticizing-rational
 
Last edited:
#3
To me, there's no surprise there. It would be beneficial to have group of people ( my choices would include Tsakiris, DeGracia and some of Sheldrake's team) start an "Open Science" wiki.
Indeed.There is nothing rational about the so-called rationalwiki anyway.
Whatever or whoever would challenge or go beyond materialism is ,by definition, pseudo-scientifc , according to that silly materialist source.
It's about time that non-materialist science takes the "offensive" by debunking rationalwiki and by offering its alternative to materialism.
 
#4
hahahaha. Comparison to the Nazis at nuremberg! Yeah, I mean you did try and discuss parapsychology, so that's just on par with the extermination of 11 million people. lol
 
#5
I wasn't even discussing parapsychology with them, I was discussing their evidenced based claims about historical information about me and editorial arguments I made on Wikipedia about sources. They claimed that I should have chosen my clients more wisely, and that declaring that because Deepak Chopra funded my work, I can't use that as an excuse not to be harassed as a promoter of pseudoscience and such a defense on their platform is the equivalent of 'superior orders' defense used by Nazi soldiers.
 
#6
I wasn't even discussing parapsychology with them, I was discussing their evidenced based claims about historical information about me and editorial arguments I made on Wikipedia about sources. They claimed that I should have chosen my clients more wisely, and that declaring that because Deepak Chopra funded my work, I can't use that as an excuse not to be harassed as a promoter of pseudoscience and such a defense on their platform is the equivalent of 'superior orders' defense used by Nazi soldiers.
I'm still not following the whole nazi comparison. Seems a bit excessive. To me, it's like saying that a guy fixing the lighting in a church is somehow no longer credible because he fixed something for an institution that may well be selling lies.
 
#8
I applaud your effort, sir. With that said, are you honestly surprised? We can only hope the people are Rational Wiki and Conservapedia destroy each other in some kind of epic battle of zealotry. It's clear the folks at RW are zealots of the worse type. They are not worth the effort.

Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki
I’ve been exposing harassing behaviors in collaborative communities ever since and began to publish Wikipedia, we have a problem.

Words like 'pseudoscientist!' 'woo supporter'! get thrown around by these communities to individuals they believe are writing or researching in a number of alternative health or mind/body topics.

But to apply those terms to people who are making editorial arguments about biographical facts on an encyclopedia?

If someone was to discover who I am for the first time via my biography on Rational Wiki - I would look like a crank or a nut ball. As an entrepreneur, I can’t tell you how utterly annoying it is when I have to explain my ‘Rational Wiki’ article entry to an investor or a client.

I decided to find out a few days ago to finally see what they offer for resolution and what process they use to arrive at it. I went to their site and this caught my attention.




Great I thought. I absolutely disagree with Rational Wiki’s publication being used to leverage ‘payback’ on me for anonymously editing a Wikipedia article. After all - they claim to be a publisher of ‘evidenced based facts’, so they have set the high standard for themselves as a publisher.

So I clicked on the link ‘constructive dialogue’ and came to the next page.


So I did. I choose option #3 and I wrote an essay called ‘Rational Wiki revisited, a critique’ and posted it to their website on April 15th, 2015 - just two days ago.

So I spent two days chatting with them on their deletion vote - I confronted each comment made with critical questioning. I comprised the essay to address the various comments and opinions they had, and even adjusted some of my own statements based on what they told me. I asked them questions to each new argument twist they gave me. Their argument closed with comparing me to Nazi’s defending themselves at the Nuremberg trials, Godwin’s Law and all.

They then deleted the essay from Rational Wiki from all of the archives. As if it was never there.

I archived the essay here. It never received a completed edit so apologies for typos or a few rants on sentences. Oye.

And thus concluded the ‘reasoned debate’ about ‘evidenced based’ facts with the juvenile Rational Wiki community.

This article is also posted here: http://romeviharo.tumblr.com/post/116776035715/rational-wiki-deletes-essay-criticizing-rational
 
#9
I applaud your effort, sir. With that said, are you honestly surprised? We can only hope the people are Rational Wiki and Conservapedia destroy each other in some kind of epic battle of zealotry. It's clear the folks at RW are zealots of the worse type. They are not worth the effort.
kind of cancelling themselves out like some sort of asshole singularity.
 
#14
Rational Wiki has undeleted the article, as one of their forum members here suggested. Thanks inter-webs!
The best way to debunk materialism is through providing waterproof or strong empirical evidence the validity of which materialists cannot deny as such, i presume.Good luck .Cheers.
 
#16
"This is not a pre-Nürnberg war crimes trial; superior orders are not a defense here" wow what a charming statement.
Well, hard evidence is the only way to defeat materialists.Whining or playing the victim role would only help their already lost "case or cause ".
The fact that materialism is false does not mean that all non-materialist claims are correct.
The latter should be supported by hard empirical evidence.
 
#17
Well, hard evidence is the only way to defeat materialists.Whining or playing the victim role would only help their already lost "case or cause ".
The fact that materialism is false does not mean that all non-materialist claims are correct.
The latter should be supported by hard empirical evidence.
You seem very confused. By definition if it's not materialist there will not be hard evidence. And "defeat materialists"? Yikes!! Why do you frame this as a battle? Also what to you is "empirical"?

Let me spell it out plainly- your thinking is as constrained by the concepts underlying materialism as that of the most staunch materialist.
 
#18
="Saiko, post: 64744, member: 89"]You seem very confused. By definition if it's not materialist there will not be hard evidence. And "defeat materialists"? Yikes!! Why do you frame this as a battle? Also what to you is "empirical"?
I know that mainstream materialist science has been ignoring or denying a lots of empirical evidence as such , simply because it lies outside or challenges the supremacy of the materialist meta-paradigm in current science , but that's no reason to whine and complain about that :
" Evidence is first rejected , opposed and then it becomes self-evident at the end of the line."

On the other hand , it is a battle , a kind of an ideological war even that has been fought at the level of science , philosophy ...between the materialist mainstream scientists and philosophers and between the non-materialist ones.


Let me spell it out plainly- your thinking is as constrained by the concepts underlying materialism as that of the most staunch materialist.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.Would you care to elaborate on just that ? Thanks.

P.S.: It would help a lot if you would just make your tone and attitude a bit more pleasant.That wouldn't hurt.
Leave your personal subjective issues out of this then.Cheers.
 
#20
P.S.: It would help a lot if you would just make your tone and attitude a bit more pleasant.That wouldn't hurt.
Leave your personal subjective issues out of this then.Cheers.
Oh boy. Here we go. Let's sway from the point by whining about perceived niceness. My responses to you posts have been straight. Let's stick with the subject shall we? As for "leave subjective issues" out . . what? Surely you're joking. There is nothing that gets discoursed about that is free of subjectivity. Not for humans anyway.Pure maths would be the closest thing.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.Would you care to elaborate on just that ? T
I don't know how to put it plainer than I already did. I'll alter it though - "The thinking underlying what you express is rooted in materialistic concepts."
 
Top