Experiences with RationalWiki and MetaPedia?

[Archer]

I think the regulars on there consider themselves centrists. Even people marginally left to them, like social democrats, get run off the wiki. One of the biggest fights on the wiki involved someone getting ostrasized, and that person started "socdem wiki". That doesn't mean they don't like to posture left in mainspace whenever they feel it may be fashionable to do so.

Here is a talk page where the #2 or #3 top editor tries to put his foot down saying RationalWiki is a centrist wiki, and that Jacobin sourcing shouldn't be allowed because it is "far-left". (The lefty there arguing for the Jacobin sourcing also got run off the wiki)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Kama ... _consensus

You make them sound so enthusiastic, but most of them seemed utterly listless and/or bored when I visited. I started asking questions and making statements and they did the usual song and dance but I got the impression they weren't really into it - not that they should be, but again I have to wonder why they do it in the first place. I suppose the stakes are relatively low compared to Wikipedia, the eighth most-visited website (according to Wikipedia). RationalWiki ranks around 20,000.

On Wikipedia you get these robotic sociopaths who are seemingly fueled by a combination of public assistance and their own vain self-importance as Wikipedia editors. One probably shouldn't dwell too long on this point though, as they're all just propagandists, all putting on the same act with the same purpose.

[ericbarbour]

You make them sound so enthusiastic, but most of them seemed utterly listless and/or bored when I visited. I started asking questions and making statements and they did the usual song and dance but I got the impression they weren't really into it - not that they should be, but again I have to wonder why they do it in the first place. I suppose the stakes are relatively low compared to Wikipedia, the eighth most-visited website (according to Wikipedia). RationalWiki ranks around 20,000.

That's an excellent point. All you get is a song and a dance, and then seltzer down your pants.

It's a Three Stooges routine in wiki form. As long as you know that it's only a matter of time before they ban you.....

On Wikipedia you get these robotic sociopaths who are seemingly fueled by a combination of public assistance and their own vain self-importance as Wikipedia editors. One probably shouldn't dwell too long on this point though, as they're all just propagandists, all putting on the same act with the same purpose.

Yep. No one knows or admits the real purpose, except as it relates to their damaged egomania.

[Strelnikov]

This is how RationalWiki talks about Michael Shermer:

A modern Paul

During adolescence, Shermer became a born again, fundamentalist Christian and later even got a theology degree at a Christian university. Later still, Shermer studied psychology and became more skeptical about Christian belief, finally becoming an atheist/agnostic/skeptic.[1] Shermer stated the final end of his Christian faith was when a girl was paralyzed in a motor accident. Shermer prayed to God to heal her. She remained paralyzed.[2]

So he was an idiot? I'm pretty sure nobody but the dumbest Bible-thumping rednecks think that a god is like a personal genie, you make a wish and it gets fulfilled. I don't know why they think that is flattering to Shermer or an own for Christians.

That's like saying you became an anti-boat advocate when you tried to drive one on land but didn't succeed.

It's all faith, and Christian Fundamentalism is shot-through with faith healers and other bullshitmen, so of course Shermer was going to try to "pray away" paralysis. In a way, how he was then matches where he is now, because after all the sex pest accusations he went from Libertarian (not good) to Trump-supporting anti-College-Leftist rage machine (far worse).