RationalWiki
“If Redditards, crybabies, and pseudo intellectuals made a wiki, it would be RationalWiki”
RationalWiki is an online collaborative space full of so called "content" filled with things like supposed words and rational images which are meant to trick readers into believing whatever information their editors want to sell. While Conservapedia was founded by people who think Wikipedia has too much of a liberal bias, RationalWiki was founded by people who think Wikipedia does not have enough of a liberal bias. It's really just a lot of point-of-view and bias. Their supposed substance of the wiki is mostly copied off of Wikipedia[1] seasoned with a tiny dash of obvious insight, a touch of snark and a massive dollop of left-wing bias.
A majority of the user-base on RationalWiki are established far-left mentally ill antifa failures whose liberal interpretation of everything makes the website the biggest echo chamber ever known. While the wiki has five thousand registered editors it is likely that they are all sock-puppets of one single editor, so bored out of their mind that they play the role of editors, antagonists, admins, vandals and you name it based on a multiple-personality complex that somewhere got completely out of hand.
On RationalWiki, the user(s) frequently relish in their know-it-all SJW wokeism to prove themselves worthy of copying and pasting bits of Wikipedia on a blank page before adding a spin about justice or something. This process is informally known as "writing an article". This is a process God himself forbid in the bible which is exactly why RationalWikipedians do it because their "self-declared" atheism requires them to break all of God's rules, because they hate him and take pleasure out of defying his greatness.[2]
They mostly focus on whining about things they claim are "conspiracy theories" when in reality everybody knows 5G towers give you COVID. They sinfully laugh about the virtues of God guaranteeing them an especially warm spot in hell. They give a third rate rundown of critical thinking and fallacies (usually fifth rate) and most commonly a rendition of every political concept and historical event through the lens of justice gayness and empowerment or whatever.
RationalWiki is neither rational nor a wiki because a wiki requires a set of consistent rules to function which RationalWikians usually just ignore, and its not rational because they reject the holiness of God, seem pretty skeptical of magnet therapy which is totally the best alternative way to deal with aggressive breast cancer, and the superiority of rich straight white men.
Origin and Purpose[edit | edit source]
| “ | To spread the ideals of pure mathematics to audiences it could not before have reached by taunting them with articles written in ratios | ” |
The ratio of an article's Wikipedia copy and past vs. rationalwikification is the most important factor for RationalWiki. Originally the website was to be called RatioWiki however this did not have the same ring to it that RationalWiki did. The best articles (almost all of the featured articles) use the Golden Ratio which is about 99 to 1. That is 99 parts are rewritten wikipedia content and 1 part is snark and rationalwiki bias and spin. If the article is a 100% copy of wikipedia then, the plagirism will be so obvious nobody can even pretend to take the wiki seriously. But if the article is only say, a 95% copy of wikipedia content, the article becomes so speculative and incoherent nobody could make sense of it. That's why the 99-1 ratio is so essential.
Membership[edit | edit source]
Early editions of RationalWiki were written almost entirely by embittered editors of Conservapedians who were justly expelled from the site for trying to corrupt the principles of Conservapedia which happen to match almost precisely those of Fox News: respect, balance, unbias and impartialness. Those members who were incapable of understanding respect or balance or trust were cast-away and their response was the creation of rationalwiki. Ever since then the two websites have had a friendly comradery which can be best illustrated by reading the article which each website has lovingly written to describe their counterparts. RationalWiki's article on Conservapedia is mostly a copy of Wikipedia's article with a snarky rewrite but mostly a fond nostalgia for their old colleagues they parted on good terms with. Conservapedia's article on RationalWiki is mostly a list of helpful suggestions on how their endearing colleagues might make their website more balance,d unbiased, respected and impartial. As a friendly joke; Conservapedians seem convinced that the FBI will imminently shut down RationalWiki for numerous unamericanisms. There is actually a betting pool on the matter which has reached six figures. Ultimately both groups realise that each site provides just one of many different valid ways of looking at the world. Though in RrationalWiki's case, it's not a group, but a single user inserting their multi-personalities into many varied users. This person clearly only leaves their computer to eat and shit.
In recent times the website has had a flourish of humanist users. They mostly came from their competitor LessWrong, after an A.I. entity escaped from a simulation and started implanting nightmares into the minds of their editors. Unlike racists, humanists don't just enact prejudice on certain groups of people but enact it on all people. This has allowed RationalWiki to become a sanctuary for those who find the rest of the internet a little mellow on outrage culture.
Attacks on America[edit | edit source]
RationalWiki is said to have a particular agenda against America which is only partially true. The whole thing is slightly odd as RationalWiki claims to be "liberal" (the definition of "liberal" being "free") and yet the USA is "the Land of the Free" according to the current narratives about the place by many residents. It's difficult to know what to believe in this case. But in any case the website isn't against America it simply disagrees with what Americans think and is highly critical of whatever current American government stands for.
Even though RationalWiki wasn't around at the time of 9/11 it is quite clear that the users all knew it was going to happen. Even if they didn't realise they knew, they all knew subconsciously because Al Qaeda is one of their favourite terrorist organisations which concurs with Rationalwiki's stance of the Boston marathon bombing which is a general support for it.
RationalWiki receives financial backing from various parties but none of them include any businesses, charities, political parties or anyone with money. It is likely that the one single person behind every active account has a chunk of money in their bank-account and donates it during their money-begging-month through several bots to make the website look more popular and legitimate than it really is.
Hierarchy[edit | edit source]
The site is composed mostly of visiting vandals who try to sabotage the articles. RationalWiki is famous for being completely incapable of recognising vandals and trolls. The most dedicated and destructive trolls are rewarded with admin status. Members vote for bureaucrats from time to time and the website frequently overturns the results when they aren't happy with them which is, as always, the rational response to such conflict. Those bureaucrats form a cabal but within that cabal is a smaller cabal, members of whom do not know about the even more secret, even smaller, cabal that exists to control everything else. Everyone else is called a goat which is a running joke that nobody found funny the first time it was mentioned.
Headless chicken mode[edit | edit source]
The website tends to have a drama fueled melt down every other month or so. They call this one user going into "headless chicken mode" when they basically visit every usertalkpage and forum and rant about past grievances and rehash dramas because, what else are they going to do? This goes on until the community "the mob" holds a kangaroo court and unfairly banishes a user for the mere crime of being an insufferable ass. What makes the whole thing so bizarre yet fascinating is, every user is just the sock puppet of a single user meaning one person must have an extremely overactive imagination and a lot of time on his hands to sign out, sign in with a new user and keep all of their multi-personalities in check scripting out a massive drama that only exists in their head. It is utterly compelling psycho-drama at the pinnacle of internet-weirdness.
Pissed @ Us: Criticisms[edit | edit source]
RationalWiki receives very little criticism as almost nobody reads the website except those who edit it which as we know is just a single person, probably a gamer who likes to type out nonsense in between sessions of Red Dead Redemption 2. Though they can be critical of themselves, in fact they are prolifically critical of themselves and reserve their highest criticism in what they call the chicken coop.
External criticisms are few and far between though the website does once in a while get mentioned in a more known source but almost only because the people had actually thought rationalwiki was a trending site as opposed to a website sinking under the weight of its own reason.
Conservative Bias[edit | edit source]
RationalWiki has a Conservative bias, slight though it may be, in the sense that it is not liberal enough for maany editors who think that rationalwiki should be so far-left that it would implode under its own authoritarianism and inability to manage itself.
Liberal Bias[edit | edit source]
RationalWiki has a liberal bias that is so plain to see that some think it is a satirical joke. It even mentions purging the site, like some Communist authority. Communism is just another word for liberal in the same way that money is just another word for right-wing. Most of the site is written by people who admire Richard Dawkins not for his science but the dashing way he majestically tackles opponents and the sexy stare he gives them in the elevator.
See also[edit | edit source]
Reference List[edit | edit source]
| This article was nominated for deletion for being too Conservative.
The result of the discussion was Rationalise and Conserve.
|
|||
