5 ms·

As an aside, I do not trust Rational Wiki to be a reliable source of information. Just one example: Their information about Alcoholics Anonymous’s effectivenes

by placer 5y ago

As an aside, I do not trust Rational Wiki to be a reliable source of information. Just one example: Their information about Alcoholics Anonymous’s effectiveness can charitably be described as a dumpster fire: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous (For example, they cite Brandsma 1980, which is a very outdated chestnut anti-AA polemics always bring out; the study is really old and its methodology was pretty bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandsma_1980 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandsma_1980 ) In particular, Rational Wiki’s article on AA completely ignores Cochrane 2020, which shows that Alcoholics Anonymous has a 42% success rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_An...

meowface 5y ago
Rational Wiki is one of the most unintentionally funny and ridiculous sites, given the name. It's probably one of the least reliable and credible sources of information on the internet due to the juxtaposition, a la DPRK's name. It's Pathos Wiki. [Something something Conservapedia, stare into abyss, etc.] For some reason, it seems there are basically no nominally-neutral websites, forums, or news outlets that exist. (That I'm aware of.) I don't mean neutral; of course nothing is or can be perfectly neutral. I mean it seems no one is even attempting to be neutral or even attempting to portray themselves as neutral. There is no concept of an anti-agenda agenda.
- placer 5y ago
  Indeed. The one thing RationalWiki is good at is, when there’s some quack theory or junk science out there that’s not notable enough to grace the Wikipedia, RW often times has a page on it.
- jolux 5y ago
  > I mean it seems no one is even attempting to be neutral or even attempting to portray themselves as neutral. There is no concept of an anti-agenda agenda. Wikipedia!
  - meowface 5y ago
    Yeah, that's true. I don't think they meet the "actually neutral" criteria, but they do try to be.

by placer 5y ago

meowface 5y ago

Rational Wiki is one of the most unintentionally funny and ridiculous sites, given the name. It's probably one of the least reliable and credible sources of information on the internet due to the juxtaposition, a la DPRK's name. It's Pathos Wiki. [Something something Conservapedia, stare into abyss, etc.] For some reason, it seems there are basically no nominally-neutral websites, forums, or news outlets that exist. (That I'm aware of.) I don't mean neutral; of course nothing is or can be perfectly neutral. I mean it seems no one is even attempting to be neutral or even attempting to portray themselves as neutral. There is no concept of an anti-agenda agenda.

placer 5y ago
Indeed. The one thing RationalWiki is good at is, when there’s some quack theory or junk science out there that’s not notable enough to grace the Wikipedia, RW often times has a page on it.
jolux 5y ago
> I mean it seems no one is even attempting to be neutral or even attempting to portray themselves as neutral. There is no concept of an anti-agenda agenda. Wikipedia!
- meowface 5y ago
  Yeah, that's true. I don't think they meet the "actually neutral" criteria, but they do try to be.