As a side note, I strongly recommend the uBlacklist extension Mati mentions for preventing toxic websites from appearing on your search results (e.g. a certain “rational” wiki that writes cruel stuff about people they dislike).
I do not expect RationalWiki to write favorably of LW/EY in worlds where LW/EY is net-good, and unfavorably in worlds where LW/EY is net-bad. I expect RW to write unfavorably of LW/EY either way, so I don’t care much for their analysis (although I have read some of it, to make sure I’m not missing something).
I think LW cares much more about truth-seeking, while RW gives me more of a “360-degree-spin-and-then-dunk on the Outgroup” vibe.
Disclaimer: I’ve only read a few articles on there.
I doubt many of the ‘facts’ they provide are provably wrong but a number of RationalWiki articles struck me as very tendentious and one-sided and as such portraying a subject matter in a way that leads to wrong conclusions unless one gathers additional information.
E.g. from the RW article on SA: “He is highly critical of communism, [...] Much as with neoreaction, this hasn’t stopped him from writing long book reports and getting very interested, for example, in the details of central planning in the USSR.”. Rhetorics like ‘Much as with neoreaction [...]’ don’t belong in a wiki, much less one that names itself RationalWiki.
As a side note, I strongly recommend the uBlacklist extension Mati mentions for preventing toxic websites from appearing on your search results (e.g. a certain “rational” wiki that writes cruel stuff about people they dislike).
Can you give me a headsup on RationalWiki? It did not shout “unfair bullshit” to me. Are their facts wrong or are they just mean?
I do not expect RationalWiki to write favorably of LW/EY in worlds where LW/EY is net-good, and unfavorably in worlds where LW/EY is net-bad. I expect RW to write unfavorably of LW/EY either way, so I don’t care much for their analysis (although I have read some of it, to make sure I’m not missing something).
I think LW cares much more about truth-seeking, while RW gives me more of a “360-degree-spin-and-then-dunk on the Outgroup” vibe.
Disclaimer: I’ve only read a few articles on there.
I doubt many of the ‘facts’ they provide are provably wrong but a number of RationalWiki articles struck me as very tendentious and one-sided and as such portraying a subject matter in a way that leads to wrong conclusions unless one gathers additional information.
E.g. from the RW article on SA: “He is highly critical of communism, [...] Much as with neoreaction, this hasn’t stopped him from writing long book reports and getting very interested, for example, in the details of central planning in the USSR.”. Rhetorics like ‘Much as with neoreaction [...]’ don’t belong in a wiki, much less one that names itself RationalWiki.