RW has numerous critics, roughly divided in two (overlapping) groups: those that take issue with the content and those who take issue with the style. See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:Pissed at us
When one side of an issue has the scientific consensus to back it up, and the other clearly doesn't, part of our mission is placing the two side by side and calling it like we sees it. Wikipedia) is that we openly avoid any pretentions to neutrality on controversial subjects. One of many ways which distinguishes RW from encyclopedias (e.g.While RW has a serious mission, it is ultimately a volunteer project - and as such, an important way to keep interest high is to ensure that our articles are fun both to read and write.This focus on discussion captures the essence of Internet forums. Discussion among members is facilitated on many levels such as debate articles, specific discussions on talk pages, and just coming together to talk about whatever is on our minds at the Saloon Bar.By encouraging original research and essays, RW has also incorporated many aspects of the blogging community.The community has embraced the concept of wikis by creating an information source out of the collaborative editing of thousands of people.While many of RW's articles may look like encyclopedia entries, RW goes much further – it encourages original research and opinion formation.
TUMBLEWEED GIF RATIONALWIKI SOFTWARE
While RW uses software originally developed for a well-known online encyclopedia, it is important to realize that RW is not trying to be an encyclopedia. See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? Online source reliability watchdog Media Bias/Fact Check ranks RationalWiki very favorably - giving us a "HIGH" rating in their review of our site. Instead, our intention is for every individual view to prove a chance for us to disseminate accurate information against the flood of pseudoscience and anti-intellectualism that permeates much of the public discourse today.įor us, more viewers simply translate into more chances to help dissuade pseudoscientific and fundamentalist thinking, and to rally the interest of still more dedicated editors to the cause of scientific skepticism (thus resulting in the proliferation of more and better skeptical content - here, as well as in society generally). However, RW's objective isn't to collect views in and of itself (since the truth isn't a popularity contest), especially since we don't sell anything, nor run any type of ads in order to monetize hits. This puts RW above other skeptical sites like Quackwatch, Skeptoid, and Freethought Blogs, though still below big players like PolitiFact and Snopes. Īlso since 2013, RW's Alexa rank (a measure accurate only in a broad sense) has hovered between 15,000 th and 25,000 th most popular website on the entire Internet, which translates to about 4 million-ish unique monthly visitors. By November 2012, RW's traffic had reached about 32,000 unique visitors per day and since 2013, RW has had 700-1,000 monthly editors and 15,000-30,000 monthly edits. RW is a fairly popular site, especially among online skeptical resources. RW stats on active editors and edits, as of July 2016.
0 kommentar(er)
