跳转到内容

理性維基：修订间差异

维基百科，自由的百科全书
下一版本→
删除的内容 添加的内容
可视化wikitext
Former User aDB0haVymg（留言 | 贡献）
7,621次编辑
新草稿
（没有差异）

2019年11月29日 (五) 09:38的版本

Template:Use American English

RationalWiki
File:RationalWiki Logo.png
截图
RationalWiki Main Page 截至2019年3月11日 (2019-03-11)
网站类型
Wiki
语言English, Russian and more[1]
持有者RationalMedia Foundation[2]
创始人Volunteer contributors[3]
网址rationalwiki.org
商业性质No
注册Optional
推出时间2007年5月22日，​17年前​（2007-05-22）[4]
现状Active
內容許可
CC-BY-SA 3.0[5]
編程語言MediaWiki software

RationalWiki is a wiki whose stated aims are to critique and challenge pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and the anti-science movement, explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism, and analyze how these subjects are handled in the media.[7] It was created in 2007 to counter Conservapedia after an incident in which contributors attempting to edit Conservapedia were banned.[8] In recent years, the website has explicitly moved its focus away from Conservapedia.[9]

History

Origin

In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, attempted to edit Conservapedia's article on breast cancer to include evidence against Conservapedia's claim that abortion was linked to the disease. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia started by Andy Schlafly as an alternative to Wikipedia, which Schlafly perceived as suffering from liberal and atheist bias. He and Conservapedia administrators "questioned [Lipson's] credentials and shut down debate". After they were blocked, "Lipson and several other contributors quit trying to moderate the articles [on Conservapedia] and instead started their own website, RationalWiki".[8][10]

Content

RationalWiki differs in several ways from the philosophy of Wikipedia and some other informational wikis. It is written from a self-described "snarky point of view" (SPOV) rather than a "neutral point of view" (NPOV), and publishes opinion, speculation, and original research.[11] Many RationalWiki articles mockingly describe beliefs that RationalWiki opposes, especially when covering topics like alternative medicine or fundamentalist Christians.[10]

A significant fraction of activity on RationalWiki is critiquing and "monitor[ing] Conservapedia".[8] RationalWiki contributors, many of whom are former Conservapedia contributors, are often highly critical of Conservapedia, and according to an article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2007, RationalWiki members "by their own admission" vandalize Conservapedia.[8] Lester Haines of The Register stated: "Its entry entitled 'Conservapedia:Delusions' promptly mocks the claims that 'Homosexuality is a mental disorder', 'Atheists are sociopaths', and 'During the 6 days of creation G-d placed the Earth inside a black hole to slow down time so the light from distant stars had time to reach us'".[10]

Both Yan et. al 2019[12] and Knoche et al.,[13] two articles about classifying a writer's biases via text analysis, asserted that Conservapedia was "conservative" and RationalWiki was "liberal". Examining RationalWiki, Conservapedia, and Wikipedia, Knoche found that Conservapedia associated white people with pleasant words, black people with unpleasant, Islam with unpleasant, and atheism with unpleasant. Both Conservapedia and Wikipedia associated Christianity with pleasant words. RationalWiki had no such significant associations. All three wikis, however, exhibited bias against women. Knoche notes that RationalWiki's "contents often include sarcasm and satire, posing special challenges to statistical analysis".

Reception

Andrea Ballatore, a lecturer at the University of California, Santa Barbara categorizes RationalWiki as a debunking website in a 2015 study, finding it to be the third most visible website when researching conspiracy theories in terms of Google and Bing search results, slightly more visible than rense.com and less visible than YouTube or Wikipedia.[14] In Critical Thinking: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, Johnathan Smith lists RationalWiki in an exercise on finding and identifying fallacies.[15]

In Intelligent Systems 2014, Alexander Shvets stated that RationalWiki is one of the few online resources that "provide some information about pseudoscientific theories" and notes that it attempts to "organize and categorize knowledge about pseudoscientific theories, personalities, and organizations".[16] Similarly, Keeler et al. stated that sites like RationalWiki can help to "sort out the complexities" that arise when "distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people".[7] Benjamin Brojakowski of Bowling Green State University described RationalWiki as "a Wikipedia-style website aimed at educating individuals with unorthodox views".[17]

RationalWiki has been cited on Internet history. Snopes has repeatedly quoted RationalWiki for background on Sorcha Faal of the European Union Times.[18][19][20][21] RationalWiki's description of the "Lenski affair" was quoted by Magnus Ramage in Perspectives on Information[22] and cited by Tom Kaden in Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States.[23] It was quoted by Thomas Leitch in Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age on the history of Citizendium.[24] RationalWiki was cited by Reiss Rubinstein and Lois Weithorn in Responding to the Childhood Vaccination Crisis about the website Whale.to, saying that it is an "infamous conspiracy site", using RationalWiki as a source.[25] RationalWiki's explanation of Gish gallops was referenced by The Guardian in an article on climate change denial[26] and Erik Krabbe and Jan van Laar in an article on "quibbles".[27] RationalWiki's description of the history and membership of LessWrong was quoted by Beth Singler in Existential Hope and Existential Despair in AI Apocalypticism and Transhumanism[28] and cited by Saswat Sarangi and Pankaj Sharma in Artificial Intelligence.[29]

The Daily Beast writer Charles Davis alleges that, according to LibCom.org, Angela Nagle's Kill All Normies has "several passages" that "are similar to entries in Wikipedia and another online encyclopedia, RationalWiki".[30]

Several conservative magazines and op-eds have criticized specific RationalWiki articles. Paul Austin Murphy, of American Thinker magazine, criticized RationalWiki for calling American Thinker a "wingnut publication".[31] George Selgin of the Cato Institute disagreed with RationalWiki's criticism of the stability of the gold standard.[32] Franklin Einspruch of The Federalist criticized RationalWiki for debunking the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory.[33]

See also

References

  1. ^ RationalWiki:Languages. RationalWiki. [October 9, 2018]. （原始内容存档于October 9, 2018）. 
  2. ^ About. RationalMedia Foundation. [November 10, 2019]. （原始内容存档于November 10, 2019）. 
  3. ^ RationalWiki:General disclaimer. RationalWiki. [January 16, 2015]. （原始内容存档于January 6, 2015）. 
  4. ^ RationalWiki:Timeline. RationalWiki. [August 10, 2017]. （原始内容存档于August 10, 2017）. 
  5. ^ RationalWiki:Copyrights. RationalWiki. [November 5, 2018]. （原始内容存档于November 5, 2018）. 
  6. ^ Rationalwiki.org Site Info. Alexa Internet. [January 7, 2019]. （原始内容存档于December 30, 2018）. 
  7. ^ 7.0 7.1 Keeler, Mary; Johnson, Josh; Majumdar, Arun. Crowdsourced Knowledge: Peril and Promise for Complex Knowledge Systems (PDF). New England Complex Systems Institute: 756. 2011 [January 17, 2015]. （原始内容存档 (PDF)于April 13, 2015）. 
  8. ^ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Simon, Stephanie. A conservative's answer to Wikipedia. Los Angeles Times. June 19, 2007 [June 13, 2019]. 
  9. ^ Template:Cpmothball - RationalWiki. 
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Haines, Lester. Need hard facts? Try Conservapedia. The Register. June 20, 2007 [January 19, 2015]. （原始内容存档于February 11, 2015）. 
  11. ^ RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?. RationalWiki. [January 16, 2015]. （原始内容存档于February 9, 2015）. 
  12. ^ Yan, Hao; Das, Sanmay; Lavoie, Allen; Li, Sirui; Sinclair, Betsy. The Congressional Classification Challenge: Domain Specificity and Partisan Intensity. EC '19 Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 2018. 
  13. ^ Knoche, Markus; Popović, Radomir; Lemmerich, Florian; Strohmaier, Markus. Identifying Biases in Politically Biased Wikis through Word Embedding. Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. 2019: 253–257. 
  14. ^ Ballatore, Andrea. Google chemtrails: A methodology to analyze topic representation in search engine results.. First Monday. 20.7 (2015). June 19, 2015, 20 (7) [March 15, 2016]. （原始内容存档于March 8, 2016）. 
  15. ^ Smith, Jonathan C. Critical Thinking: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. John Wiley & Sons. 2017: 77. ISBN 978-1-119-02948-9. 
  16. ^ Shvets, Alexander. Filev, D.; Jabłkowski, J.; Kacprzyk, J.; et al , 编. Intelligent Systems'2014: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference Intelligent Systems IS'2014, September 24–26, 2014, Warsaw, Poland, Volume 2: Tools, Architectures, Systems, Applications. Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 323. Springer Publishing. October 2, 2014. A Method of Automatic Detection of Pseudoscientific Publications, page 533 et seq. ISBN 978-3-319-11310-4. 
  17. ^ Brojakowski, Benjamin. Digital Whiteness Imperialism: Redefining Caucasian Identity Post-Boston Bombing. Bowling Green State University (dissertation). August 2017 [October 3, 2017]. （原始内容存档于October 3, 2017）. 
  18. ^ Mikkelson, David. Russia Warns Obama: Monsanto. Snopes. May 29, 2013 [January 19, 2015]. 
  19. ^ Mikkelson, David. Pentagon Warns to Expect 'Radical' Change in U.S. Government Soon. Snopes. October 10, 2013 [January 19, 2015]. 
  20. ^ Mikkelson, David. Obama Ousts Top Officers After Nuke Explodes in Ocean Instead of Charleston. Snopes. March 19, 2015 [August 19, 2019]. 
  21. ^ Mikkelson, David. Obama Plan to Depopulate Montana Raises Crisis Fears in Moscow. Snopes. January 27, 2014 [January 19, 2015]. 
  22. ^ Ramage, Magnus; Chapman, David. Perspectives on Information. Routledge. 2012: 90. ISBN 978-1-136-70763-6. 
  23. ^ Kaden, Tom. Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States: A Sociology of Conflict. Springer. 2019: 22, 111. ISBN 978-3-319-99379-9. 
  24. ^ Leitch, Thomas. Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age. JHU Press. 2014: 145. ISBN 978-1-4214-1550-5. 
  25. ^ Reiss, Dorit Rubinstein; Weithorn, Lois A. Responding to the Childhood Vaccination Crisis: Legal Frameworks and Tools in the Context of Parental Vaccine Refusal. Buffalo Law Review. 2015, 63: 943 [August 19, 2019]. 
  26. ^ Nuccitelli, Dana. These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.. The Guardian. July 25, 2016 [October 6, 2017]. 
  27. ^ Krabbe, Erik; van Laar, Jan. In the quagmire of quibbles: a dialectical exploration. Synthese. 2019. doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02289-4. 
  28. ^ Singler, Beth. Existential Hope and Existential Despair in AI Apocalypticism and Transhumanism. Zygon. March 2019, 54 (1): 156–176. doi:10.1111/zygo.12494. 
  29. ^ Sarangi, Saswat; Sharma, Pankaj. Introduction. Artificial Intelligence: Evolution, Ethics and Public Policy. Routledge India. 2018: 24. ISBN 978-0-429-46100-2. 
  30. ^ Davis, Charles. Sloppy Sourcing Plagues 'Kill All Normies' Alt-Right Book. The Daily Beast. 2018-05-19 [2018-11-28]. 
  31. ^ Murphy, Paul Austin. American Thinker is a Wingnut Publication. American Thinker. November 19, 2014 [January 19, 2015]. （原始内容存档于January 20, 2015）. 
  32. ^ Selgin, George. Ten Things Every Economist Should Know about the Gold Standard. Cato Institute. June 4, 2015 [August 14, 2017]. （原始内容存档于August 14, 2017）. 
  33. ^ Einspruch, Franklin. Cultural Marxists Are Actually Pomofascists. The Federalist. September 6, 2016 [August 14, 2017]. （原始内容存档于August 14, 2017）. 
检索自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=理性維基&oldid=57065882”