Most Rational Wiki editors don’t seem to be bothered at all that their article on me was written as a form of payback for editing a Wikipedia article.
With Rational Wiki editor Leuders, that makes it personal, not editorial and not responsible. He doesn’t think Rational Wiki should publish anything about me unless it’s discrediting.
Viharo…. fundamentally doesn’t understand is that RW is not required to present a neutral” point of view about his ideas, e.g.
‘Neutral point of view’ is not a request that I have made, ever. The only request I’ve made is the removal of the bad faith article.
Indeed – I have written on this blog, and on their talk forum – that an intrinsic component of the RW brand is ‘snark’, specifically the ‘Snarky point of View’. Somehow, RW believes that publishing evidenced based facts in this voice is not somehow inherently contradictory to responsible publishing. In my case they favor snark over facts.
So when Leuders reasoning for justifying my article on Rational Wiki as…
if some idea (OS 012, Aikiwiki, Google Consciousness, etc) is bullshit, we will say so,
…he is quite unaware of the gravity of the environment he is publishing inside of. He’s not taking this very seriously.
To imply that I am discredited is misleading. Period. To publish misleading information comes with problems and responsibilities to solve those problems.
Leuders doesn’t believe RationalWiki needs to justify that at all.
This is where Rational Wiki as a publisher crosses into extremely problematic territory.
The integrity of the mission of Rational Wiki is the publication and promotion of evidenced based facts, science, logic, and reason.
I don’t believe RationalWiki has integrity with these principles. I think the editors on Rational Wiki just want to be right.
And just like any ‘I’m already right’ type thinker, that’s the only principle they are defending. They don’t have to be ethical, they’re already right, so who cares about things like ethics and responsibility?
I believe what comprises the community rule is extremism. This is how extremists of any position or point of view discuss and reason. This is not how normal, healthy, rational, intelligent people treat information and engage in reasoned problem solving. This is ‘opposite land’ RationalWiki.
Leuders believes that it’s okay that I’ve suffered personal harassment and loss from having this article published on me, because it’s important the public know I’ve had a relationship with Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra in relationship to my work.
…. reporting and commenting on Viharo’s relationship to Sheldrake and Chopra is well within the site’s mission.
So the sites mission, which is to expose pseudoscience and quackery, suggests it’s responsible to publish articles on people who engage professionally with Rational Wiki’s enemies. That’s fair game, anyone can be targeted for a ‘snark’ article by association. Like any ideological extremists, you’re either with them or against them.
Leuders is arguing Rational Wiki editors have the right to identify those people via historical comments left on blogs, some even going back 12 years, or anonymous activity on the internet, such as editing Wikipedia. Leuders believes that even if you have the appearance of a ‘supporter of pseudoscience, quackery and woo’ you’re fair game to be targeted. He believes it’s okay to re-publish the doxing and outing these kind of ‘suspicious’ individuals on Rational Wiki, and then disperse the information to a community that shares principles in common with him.
This is where ideological extremism goes to crazy town, and this is where Rational Wiki is failing to see the forest for the trees.