Rational Wiki’s tangled rationalizations for harassment. Meet Leuders. (May 2015)

 

RationalWiki editors who write the attack piece which targets yours truly 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 RationalWiki should publish anything about me unless it’s discrediting me, after all their brand is “snark”.

When confronted with the misinformation on RationalWiki, Leuders says;

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, misinformation that was written about me in a wiki war.

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 presenting an encyclopedia that centers on science based articles and progressive viewpoints in this voice is not somehow inherently contradictory to responsible publishing.

In my case they favor snark over facts, and use it as misinformation.

So when Leuders reasoning for justifying my article on RationalWiki 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 RationalWiki 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 fundamentalism of their world view, mixed with psychological issues that enable them to troll and target individuals online.

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 RationalWiki’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  RationalWiki editors have the right to identify those people via historical comments left on blogs, some even going back twelve 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 RationalWiki, 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 RationalWiki is failing to see the forest for the trees.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*