Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki

Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by RViharo, Apr 19, 2015.

  1. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    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.



    [​IMG]
    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.

    [​IMG]
    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: Apr 19, 2015
  2. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    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.
     
    BotchCat and RumShams like this.
  3. RumShams

    RumShams New

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    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. politicaljunkie

    politicaljunkie New

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Messages:
    291
    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. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    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. politicaljunkie

    politicaljunkie New

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Messages:
    291
    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.
     
  7. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    exactly my point as well - it's ridiculous.
     
  8. BotchCat

    BotchCat New

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2014
    Messages:
    128
    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.

     
  9. politicaljunkie

    politicaljunkie New

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Messages:
    291
    kind of cancelling themselves out like some sort of asshole singularity.
     
  10. FuzzyCatPotato

    FuzzyCatPotato New

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    92
    Your essay's been undeleted; only one editor was deleting it.

    I guess it's just evil RationalWiki censorship, eh?
     
  11. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,226
    All's well that ends well.
     
  12. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,581
    So it is possible to shame them into doing the right thing. :)
     
  13. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    Rational Wiki has undeleted the article, as one of their forum members here suggested. Thanks inter-webs!
     
  14. RumShams

    RumShams New

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    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.
     
  15. politicaljunkie

    politicaljunkie New

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Messages:
    291
    "This is not a pre-Nürnberg war crimes trial; superior orders are not a defense here" wow what a charming statement.
     
  16. RumShams

    RumShams New

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    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. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    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. RumShams

    RumShams New

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    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.


    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.
     
  19. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,226
    I don't think that will happen unfortunately.
     
    RumShams likes this.
  20. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    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 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."
     

Share This Page