I am also aware that LW and MIRI are bothered by RationalWiki.
I was a little bit at first, but then I tried clicking “random page” a few times to get a sense of what RationalWiki is like as a whole. Other than stubs, every page I landed on contained an attack of some sort. Being upset about a RationalWiki entry being unfair and negative is… like being upset about Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary being linguistically inaccurate. It doesn’t really matter and that’s not really what they do.
I’m bothered by it more than you are I guess. I mean, for people already involved in the rationality community maybe RationalWiki can just be seen as some silly vindictive website dressed up as a place to learn. But I feel like RationalWiki has decent pagerank and random people do get sent there in google searches. To have that site be the first or one of the first introductions a person has to a given rationality topic seems pretty destructive.
Being upset about a RationalWiki entry being unfair and negative is… like being upset about Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary being linguistically inaccurate. It doesn’t really matter and that’s not really what they do.
Hm....The Devil’s Dictionary is not actually a dictionary, and RationalWiki is....not actually rational! Works for me.
They are a “wiki” only in the sense that they use technology for collaborative content. But if you ever try to register an account and make edits, you will quickly see you contributions reverted, however factually accurate they may be (see e.g. the history page of the ‘effective altruism’ entry).
So I think it’s fair to say that RationalWiki is like the Holy Roman Empire: neither rational, nor a wiki.
I was a little bit at first, but then I tried clicking “random page” a few times to get a sense of what RationalWiki is like as a whole. Other than stubs, every page I landed on contained an attack of some sort. Being upset about a RationalWiki entry being unfair and negative is… like being upset about Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary being linguistically inaccurate. It doesn’t really matter and that’s not really what they do.
I’m bothered by it more than you are I guess. I mean, for people already involved in the rationality community maybe RationalWiki can just be seen as some silly vindictive website dressed up as a place to learn. But I feel like RationalWiki has decent pagerank and random people do get sent there in google searches. To have that site be the first or one of the first introductions a person has to a given rationality topic seems pretty destructive.
Hm....The Devil’s Dictionary is not actually a dictionary, and RationalWiki is....not actually rational! Works for me.
At least RationalWiki is a wiki, so they got 50% right.
I wonder if the Devil’s Dictionary is truly intended for, belonging to, or written by a Devil then.
They are a “wiki” only in the sense that they use technology for collaborative content. But if you ever try to register an account and make edits, you will quickly see you contributions reverted, however factually accurate they may be (see e.g. the history page of the ‘effective altruism’ entry).
So I think it’s fair to say that RationalWiki is like the Holy Roman Empire: neither rational, nor a wiki.