Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki

Then we no longer hold the view that the interpretation of the individual is the deciding factor as you said in "You clearly post material that people are interpreting as harassment, so it is a problem."
Reasonable people are interpreting it as harassment. Not just one individual.
 
Because allowing people to freely discuss on talkpages, in the saloon bar, and in forums on our wiki is "hiding" their viewpoints. Right.

Yes it is because only editors and a small fraction of readers look at those pages. If you want to be fair, allow people you are smearing to contest your interpretations on their Rational Wiki article. You know, the page most people actually see?
 
Reasonable people are interpreting it as harassment. Not just one individual.

Is it false? Is it intended to harm? If not, it is not harassment.

Yes it is because only editors and a small fraction of readers look at those pages. If you want to be fair, allow people you are smearing to contest your interpretations on their Rational Wiki article. You know, the page most people actually see?

The reason we have talk pages is to discuss changes to the page itself. Posting on the talkpage should eventually either be rejected as untrue or be incorporated into the article, which achieves your goal.

A further question: If I commented on Mr. Viharo's blog, should he have to incorporate my comments directly into the text of his article? Because most readers will only see the blog post, not my comments.
 
Nobody said that the vote was meaningful, except that it proves that a consensus of the RW community did not find your claims to be correct.

Right, so it's a meaningless vote. It's like a gay marriage activist going to the Westboro Baptist Church to vote on whether to allow gay marriage.
But now imagine if the Westboro Baptist Church was a prominent organization, that had a great deal of sway over public opinion, and used that power to disseminate falsified information about homosexuality and gay marriage. Such that huge majorities of people believed that the Westboro Baptist Church was telling the truth.

As it is, this does happen. And the gay community has had to fight hard to overcome the lies and disinformation regarding them as people and their lifestyle. As it was with the civil rights movement and women's sufferage before that.

For RW to honestly believe they hold they keys to the kingdom of all truth and knowledge is every bit as delusional as King Henry VIII believing he was ordained by God to heal people and act as God's sole divine representative on Earth.

Same bullshit powertrip, different millennium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Having two articles that you think contradict each other doesn't really qualify as lying by omission.

There is an absolute claim of fact that a evolutionary program is replcating natural selection and producing functional information. The only source cited is from the author of the software. There is a long history on this and sctually much better software. All have been throughly analysed. This information is not secret and has been published in scientific and engineering journals.

One article is a demonstration of the other, not a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
Is it false? Is it intended to harm? If not, it is not harassment.



The reason we have talk pages is to discuss changes to the page itself. Posting on the talkpage should eventually either be rejected as untrue or be incorporated into the article, which achieves your goal.

A further question: If I commented on Mr. Viharo's blog, should he have to incorporate my comments directly into the text of his article? Because most readers will only see the blog post, not my comments.

Certainly if Mr. Viharo was writing the article specifically about you in Wiki fashion posing as a biography, intended as a permanent resource, then absolutely yes, your opinions should be included. Duhhhhhh.
 
Thanks Fuzzy - this appears more like a rational conversation regarding my claim. I'm a bit tied up with work and will address shortly.
 
This implies that GSOW is doing illegal things on Wikipedia. There's *very* scanty evidence that GSOW does anything close to censorship or libel; instead, they follow Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:FRINGE guidelines.
A few of the original Skeptics were banned as they were so blatant in their abuse Wikipedia editors simply couldn't look the other way. But several years now of abuse (which is still ongoing) has silenced almost all opposition, as you see almost no one challenging the pages of many of the psi researchers (living or dead) which have been grossly distorted and misrepresented (deliberately) by Skeptics.

Viharo goes into some good detail of the abuse he encountered via his website page "Wikipedia We Got a Problem" http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/ and the problem has been echoed by others on other websites. It is no secret that one of the organizations behind the abuse of Wikipedia rules is a group known as the Guerilla Skeptics. There are even youtube videos (last time I checked) by this group demonstrating their activity. Unfortunately, the actual identity of some of the editors/individuals engaged in the militant activity on Wikipedia (besides the Guerilla Skeptics) has been kept pretty well hidden as they go by pen names and don't identify themselves on their Wikipedia user pages. I did however trace one of the individuals as an academic in England. And I suspect there is cooperation and concerted efforts worldwide by Skeptics to doctor the Wikipedia pages.

I think there are good grounds for a lawsuit - based on defamation or libel. However, as I said before. Proceeding forward would be too costly for most individuals and the outcome uncertain. You would need a bigger organization like the SPR or Parapsychological Association to take on these individuals - whom I consider militant dishonest thugs - take them down a notch, and provide real world consequences for their deliberately dishonest (via consistent abuse of Wikipedia rules or intent of the rules) and organized thuggish activity on Wikipedia.

Parapsychology has been an established branch of psychology now for many many decades. To label it as a pseudo-science is in itself inappropriate and offensive. But to even go further, and misrepresent the biographies of scientists and honest hard-working academic individuals by smearing their biographies with misrepresentative facts about them, and with a clear agenda and point of view on a very public supposedly objective neutral platform, does in my opinion, open itself to a lawsuit based on libel or defamation. And that's leaving out some of the harrassment certain people have encountered on more than just Wikipedia (including myself).

The problem is the money really. Without money, it's hard to stop the spread of the propaganda. The Skeptics Society is not even a scientific organization. It is for the most part - a propaganda outlet much like a fundamentalistic christian organization, convinced just as much of its own truth (atheistic/materialistic belief system), and willing to censor, harrass people who differ in their worldview, and propagandize its own fundamentalistic outlook of reality in any way it can, including ways which lack a great deal of integrity IMO.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
A few days ago I noticed that someone from the 'International Skeptics Forum', which is formerly the James Randi Forum, posted about my Rational Wiki essay. This is the forum I mention on WWHP and is the place this animosity some in the skeptic community have with me, all because of one discussion I had on that forum in 2007.

I noted Tim Farley joined the conversation. Note how he immediately frames me as a 'troll' and informed people in his community to 'not bother' reading what I publish. Now he backtracks a little to say that he thinks it's trolling because I am 'verbose', but being verbose is not trolling. I wasn't banned for being verbose on Wikipedia and Rational Wiki doesn't declare me to be a social media strategist and verbose forum poster.

Curious to see how this discussion turns out as I confront them about harassment from editing a wikipedia article.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10612939&posted=1#post10612939
 
NOTE: I am *not* an official RW or RMF spokesperson, and my statements here are purely my opinions. And, to Mr. Viharo: RW and the RMF hope to avoid a lawsuit; anything I say here should not lead towards a lawsuit.

1. Thanks for what appears to be a very genuine engagement.
2. I'm a little unsure here, is it only your opinion therefore that RW and RMF wish to avoid a lawsuit? A few internet rumors out there state that RationalMedia anticipates lawsuits, is hoping a lawsuit from a prominent 'woo' promoter - and relies on threats of lawsuits to assist in it's fundraising efforts. Are you suggesting that's not true?
3. A legal action on my end, while something I would not want to rule out, is not on my agenda. I too would prefer a responsible, reasonable resolution here.

RW policy is actually pro-"scientific point of view", rather than pro-snark. The article "RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?" merely states that "[a] RationalWiki article is not afraid to clearly state that some idea is bulls***."

It should also be noted that the RMF does not involve itself with the policies of RW, except in cases where a lawsuit may occur, and so has no control over any pro-snark policies, if such policy existed.

It doesn't have to be apart of RW 'policy'. 'Snark', including the SPOV, is apart of the RW brand, thus part of the RW copyright, which is owned by RMF making them the responsible party.

RW as a publisher encourages publishing specifically in this voice. RW defines 'snark' to include; '
Sarcasm, irony, satire, absurdist commentary, subversive humour and witty asides. These are all part of how RationalWiki presents its material to the world, and make the wiki both fun to edit and fun to read."

Yet evidenced based facts are not satirical in nature. RW fails to note an inherent conflict in publishing here. How reliable is a news organization if they deliver the world news with a 'snarky' tone? You can't both be like FOX news and the Daily Show and then claim to be a publisher of evidenced based facts without disclosing the subversive or satirical element in the article. It's just flat out misleading. There is no disclaimer on my biography article that the article is 'satirical, ironic, or subversive'.
If you can point out specific areas where snark is needlessly present, I will gladly remove it.
I provided that for the RW community on my talk page. Here is what an article on me looks like without snark. Please note I am not saying that even publishing the article like this would remove my claim of harassment, I'm just posting it as a guide.

I'm still claiming that by simply publishing an article on me on Rational Wiki it implies that I am to be criticized as a crank and promoter of pseudoscience. Additionally, the article fails to mention it's own inherent conflict of interest - that I report abuses of editorial behaviors on Wikipedia and Rational Wiki.

RW has articles about non-"cranks". See Richard Lenski, for example.

That's irrelevant. RW presents itself as a publisher of evidenced based facts and seeks to expose pseudoscience and 'cranks'. That's the RW brand. If someone goes off brand to create a page about a scientist, that means about as much as the Onion deciding to post a factually correct article about Chevy Chase.

Lenski already has third party corroboration for his biographical facts or worldview elsewhere on the web. In my case, RW is presenting the ONLY third party corroborative on my biography and worldview and therefore holds a unique responsibility.

This is true. This is only a problem if the article itself is problematic. Please bring up specific problems on our talkpage.

I tried that last year - you can see from the talk history how that went. I just got harassed further. Additionally, I did just recently post an essay going into more detail than anyone needs to know.

If you're willing yourself to work with me on a more responsible article on Rational Wiki about my biography - that's great in principle. However, that does not satisfy my claim of harassment for it's initial publication in the first place. That does not take back the trauma and effect it's had on my life for the past year and a half. I would prefer if you just remove it - or at least post a disclaimer at the top of the article.

Perhaps. Both of these actions seem unlikely, especially given that libel tends to require that the poster knowingly told a lie. If RWers, Vzaak, and Farley all thought they were telling the truth, libel would be hard to prove.

Hardly. Even if it was true that I was previously an 'internet troll' in the past, that is irrelevant knowledge about me on Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia's own clear policy. It's clear that it was intentional to misframe me as a troll to get me banned or blocked, which they specifically said they wanted to do in Wikipedia Fringe Noticeboards. They needed to present some evidence of me being a troll, because there is absolutely no evidence of any trolling behaviors in my article participation. It's clear, with direct evidence, that Wikipedia editor Manul, formerly known as Wikipedia editor Vzaak - continued to post this aspersion about me on Wikipedia, even after informing me on my talk page that they would stop and me informing them of my intention to stay anonymous on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where you assume that if someone 'believes' something they are saying is true and not libel if it removes them from responsibility. They made a claim about me. That claim was not only against the policy of the platform they were sharing it on, the claim was unfounded and fabricated based on the evidence of what they themselves were claiming, that i was trolling on Wikipedia.

But we can move on from that. That's not your fault or RW's fault that Wikipedia editor Manul does this, or that Tim Farley, publisher of 'skeptools' promotes and endorses it.

RW runs no ads.

Yes you do. And highly annoying ones at that.
68XKSOP,oVxMjjJ

http://imgur.com/68XKSOP,oVxMjjJ
Nobody said that the vote was meaningful, except that it proves that a consensus of the RW community did not find your claims to be correct.

Fuzzy, look at what you just said. 'the RW community did not find your claims to be correct'. Can we agree on what 'finding' means? It usually doesn't refer to voting, it usually refers to a deliberative process. Therefore, they did not 'find' my claims were false, or untrue, it is a little misleading to state it that way.

Where do you believe RW has shown that it intended to harass?

On Rational wiki. It first began on Oct 18th for specifically being mentioned on RW, using pejoratives which were identical to pejoratives used about me on Wikipedia talk pages, and then republishing the libel and mis framing directly used by editors on Wikipedia talk pages where editorial decisions are being discussed. That alone is pretty damning. Those were anonymous editorial discussions I was having on Wikipedia. Outing someone on the internet in an anonymous setting I hardly think anyone could suggest that public shaming for anonymous editorializing is not harassment when Rational Wiki community comments, all supporting either a main article or an article keep say specifically. I mean, after all, the Rational Wiki community obviously choose themselves to expand the scope of the article, which sources to use, which to discard.

As for any other harassment I am claiming, and how I define harassment, just check Pew Research - I'm using their models and objective criteria.

Are you asserting that my claim of Rational Wiki being used as a platform to harass is false?

I am asserting that it was

This is indeed possible. Is it true?

I believe that is true of course that's what I have been publishing WWHP about. I believe there is combined evidence of editorial behaviors with accompanying published comments of both Wikipedia editors and Rational Wiki editors show a continuation on Rational Wiki from the harassment and libelous behaviors on Wikipedia.


If you feel the article has unjustly harmed your reputation, please specify.

I've not yet completed my accounting on financial damages, but one at least I can think of is crowdfunding for aiki wiki. My development plan this year required me to run a crowdfunding campaign for aiki wiki until end of year when grant comes in. That's a $50,000.00 loss right there.

There's more to come on that, but I don't think this forum is the appropriate place for that discussion.

Feel free to publish about RW. If members of RW feel that they have been harmed by your publications, will you incorporate their criticism into your article, as RW attempts to do?

Criticism of what? Not sure what you mean, but I am very open to collaborative publication of our dispute and will republish whatever is necessary for the purposes of complete transparency for the reader.


RW documents the beliefs people hold. If said beliefs are fringe science, then is it not correct to label said person as holding fringe science beliefs? (Regardless of your situation.)

This sounds like your asking me about a much broader, almost philosophical question. Over all, I dont think it's productive to ever attack people for the ideas they believe, and use them as a person to disqualify the ideas they promote. I just think that's bad form for educators and responsible publishers. I can also say as someone deeply involved with responsible online consensus building, it's toxic. I mean, look what a time sink this is for all parties involved? Look at how attacking me as a person has actually distracted from any real or true issue regarding the mind/body problem and your goal of advancing the materialist position? This article on me doesn't solve any problems RationalMedia is trying to solve. RW created a problem that previously did not exist. It now wants to continue it's right to publish about a problem that does not exist.

That being said - that's not what our discussion is about. RW is declaring, for the first time on the internet as a 'third party corroborator', my personal and philosophical ontological reality. It is both inferring, and claiming what it is. It's taking 'private' and anonymous conversations I had, some almost a decade old, and directly choosing to ignore other evidence which actually DOES disclose what I DO promote or believe directly so it can frame me in a manner consistent with their brand, i.e. 'snarky' articles that expose pseudoscience and quacks.

Do you deny RW are cherrypicking evidence to fit a narrative appropriate for RW? I request an intellectually honest and informed answer.

Address, if you will, the claim that I am promoting 'memes are spirits' and 'google is conscious' when thats not what I am claiming in my talk, while discarding that I am claiming that social media can evolve to collaborative government?

Why does RW take comments I made in TED forum, a community of which I am a member, to establish that I am a 'promoter' of Rupert Sheldrake as a unique feature of my biography? Why use the word 'promoter' and not 'defender of Rupert's right to have his TED talk published?' I mean isn't omitting that kind of context when you're using that as claim misleading? If it's not misleading, wouldn't it then only either be delusional, or irresponsible for the editor to use that has his argument for a keep vote?

Doesn't Rational wiki engage deceptively here? Can RW honestly claim it is not aware of Lying by omission?

Again: Please bring up the specific errors on your article's talkpage and they can be resolved. That said, they may not always be resolved in your favor.

Correct, disputes may not resolve in any parties favor in any medium they may arise.

I brought up reasons up the yin yang. Every time I'm asked to bring them up, I do, I then get harassed as a troll. It's time to find a new way to resolve this responsibly.
 
Last edited:
Right, so it's a meaningless vote. It's like a gay marriage activist going to the Westboro Baptist Church to vote on whether to allow gay marriage. But now imagine if the Westboro Baptist Church was a prominent organization, that had a great deal of sway over public opinion, and used that power to disseminate falsified information about homosexuality and gay marriage. Such that huge majorities of people believed that the Westboro Baptist Church was telling the truth. As it is, this does happen. And the gay community has had to fight hard to overcome the lies and disinformation regarding them as people and their lifestyle. As it was with the civil rights movement and women's sufferage before that.

That's a valid criticism; communities can be insular and closeminded to to the point of censorship of truth. Hence why RW allows outside input *and* (theoretically) outside voting, rather unlike the WBC, which is a wee bit insular.

For RW to honestly believe they hold they keys to the kingdom of all truth and knowledge is every bit as delusional as King Henry VIII believing he was ordained by God to heal people and act as God's sole divine representative on Earth. Same bullshit powertrip, different millennium.

RW doesn't. Please, get a quote off of RW for "believe they hold they keys to the kingdom of all truth and knowledge".


Argument by assertion, much?

There is an absolute claim of fact that a evolutionary program is replcating natural selection and producing functional information. The only source cited is from the author of the software. There is a long history on this and sctually much better software. All have been throughly analysed. This information is not secret and has been published in scientific and engineering journals.

Bring it up on the talkpage. :P

One article is a demonstration of the other, not a contradiction.

So it's not lying by omission, then?

Certainly if Mr. Viharo was writing the article specifically about you in Wiki fashion posing as a biography, intended as a permanent resource, then absolutely yes, your opinions should be included. Duhhhhhh.

Should the Encyclopedia Brittanica include comments on their articles within the articles themselves?

I think rationalwiki has gone off the deep end. But I still go in there and read the stuff on that site for laughs.

Don't worry, RWers do the same to sites supporting parapsychology. :P

A few of the original Skeptics were banned as they were so blatant in their abuse Wikipedia editors simply couldn't look the other way. But several years now of abuse (which is still ongoing) has silenced almost all opposition, as you see almost no one challenging the pages of many of the psi researchers (living or dead) which have been grossly distorted and misrepresented (deliberately) by Skeptics.

Viharo goes into some good detail of the abuse he encountered via his website page "Wikipedia We Got a Problem" and the problem has been echoed by others on other websites. It is no secret that one of the organizations behind the abuse of Wikipedia rules is a group known as the Guerilla Skeptics. There are even youtube videos (last time I checked) by this group demonstrating their activity. Unfortunately, the actual identity of some of the editors/individuals engaged in the militant activity on Wikipedia (besides the Guerilla Skeptics) has been kept pretty well hidden as they go by pen names and don't identify themselves on their Wikipedia user pages. I did however trace one of the individuals as an academic in England. And I suspect there is cooperation and concerted efforts worldwide by Skeptics to doctor the Wikipedia pages.

I think there are good grounds for a lawsuit - based on defamation or libel. However, as I said before. Proceeding forward would be too costly for most individuals and the outcome uncertain. You would need a bigger organization like the SPR or Parapsychological Association to take on these individuals - whom I consider militant dishonest thugs - take them down a notch, and provide real world consequences for their deliberately dishonest (via consistent abuse of Wikipedia rules or intent of the rules) and organized thuggish activity on Wikipedia.

Parapsychology has been an established branch of psychology now for many many decades. To label it as a pseudo-science is in itself inappropriate and offensive. But to even go further, and misrepresent the biographies of scientists and honest hard-working academic individuals by smearing their biographies with misrepresentative facts about them, and with a clear agenda and point of view on a very public supposedly objective neutral platform, does in my opinion, open itself to a lawsuit based on libel or defamation. And that's leaving out some of the harrassment certain people have encountered on more than just Wikipedia (including myself).

The problem is the money really. Without money, it's hard to stop the spread of the propaganda. The Skeptics Society is not even a scientific organization. It is for the most part - a propaganda outlet much like a fundamentalistic christian organization, convinced just as much of its own truth (atheistic/materialistic belief system), and willing to censor, harrass people who differ in their worldview, and propagandize its own fundamentalistic outlook of reality in any way it can, including ways which lack a great deal of integrity IMO.

My Best,
Bertha

WWHAP might have evidence; this post is, unfortunately, just assertions, which I unfortunately do not have time to respond to.

1. Thanks for what appears to be a very genuine engagement.

No prob.

2. I'm a little unsure here, is it only your opinion therefore that RW and RMF wish to avoid a lawsuit? A few internet rumors out there state that RationalMedia anticipates lawsuits, is hoping a lawsuit from a prominent 'woo' promoter - and relies on threats of lawsuits to assist in it's fundraising efforts. Are you suggesting that's not true?

The RMF has 3 pending lawsuits against it as the fundraiser states. The RMF does not want any more. It is my opinion that this is true, and my opinion is based on the actions of RMF Board of Trustee members on-wiki.

3. A legal action on my end, while something I would not want to rule out, is not on my agenda. I too would prefer a responsible, reasonable resolution here.

Good.

It doesn't have to be apart of RW 'policy'. 'Snark', including the SPOV, is apart of the RW brand, thus part of the RW copyright, which is owned by RMF making them the responsible party. RW as a publisher encourages publishing specifically in this voice. RW defines 'snark' to include; '

Since the RMF doesn't control RW content (except in cases where individual board members feel something is obviously libelous and take it down), they have no control over the policy or the actions of RW editors.

Yet evidenced based facts are not satirical in nature. RW fails to note an inherent conflict in publishing here. How reliable is a news organization if they deliver the world news with a 'snarky' tone? You can't both be like FOX news and the Daily Show and then claim to be a publisher of evidenced based facts without disclosing the subversive or satirical element in the article. It's just flat out misleading. There is no disclaimer on my biography article that the article is 'satirical, ironic, or subversive'.

All RW pages do have a link to the RW:About page and RationalWiki:General disclaimer pages, which point out the issues you bring up.

I provided that for the RW community on my talk page. Here is what an article on me looks like without snark. Please note I am not saying that even publishing the article like this would remove my claim of harassment, I'm just posting it as a guide.

I'll look over that version. However, given that there's no reasons for individual changes, I can only see it as a suggestion, rather than an evidenced version of the article.

Publishing the version of the article that you support is harassment?

I'm still claiming that by simply publishing an article on me on Rational Wiki it implies that I am to be criticized as a crank and promoter of pseudoscience. Additionally, the article fails to mention it's own inherent conflict of interest - that I report abuses of editorial behaviors on Wikipedia and Rational Wiki. That's irrelevant. RW presents itself as a publisher of evidenced based facts and seeks to expose pseudoscience and 'cranks'. That's the RW brand. If someone goes off brand to create a page about a scientist, that means about as much as the Onion deciding to post a factually correct article about Chevy Chase.

See the above RW:About and RationalWiki:General disclaimer pages.

Why is it a conflict of interest if you report on us?

Lenski already has third party corroboration for his biographical facts or worldview elsewhere on the web. In my case, RW is presenting the ONLY third party corroborative on my biography and worldview and therefore holds a unique responsibility.

Is there legal support for such a position? Is the first publisher of a book on a subject more responsible than others?

I tried that last year - you can see from the talk history how that went. I just got harassed further. Additionally, I did just recently post an essay going into more detail than anyone needs to know. If you're willing yourself to work with me on a more responsible article on Rational Wiki about my biography - that's great in principle. However, that does not satisfy my claim of harassment for it's initial publication in the first place. That does not take back the trauma and effect it's had on my life for the past year and a half. I would prefer if you just remove it - or at least post a disclaimer at the top of the article.

What disclaimer, and why?

Hardly. Even if it was true that I was previously an 'internet troll' in the past, that is irrelevant knowledge about me on Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia's own clear policy. It's clear that it was intentional to misframe me as a troll to get me banned or blocked, which they specifically said they wanted to do in Wikipedia Fringe Noticeboards. They needed to present some evidence of me being a troll, because there is absolutely no evidence of any trolling behaviors in my article participation. It's clear, with direct evidence, that Wikipedia editor Manul, formerly known as Wikipedia editor Vzaak - continued to post this aspersion about me on Wikipedia, even after informing me on my talk page that they would stop and me informing them of my intention to stay anonymous on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where you assume that if someone 'believes' something they are saying is true and not libel if it removes them from responsibility. They made a claim about me. That claim was not only against the policy of the platform they were sharing it on, the claim was unfounded and fabricated based on the evidence of what they themselves were claiming, that i was trolling on Wikipedia.

What specific statement does the RW article make here that you object to?

Yes you do. And highly annoying ones at that.

You mean the CAPTCHA? Not sure if that qualifies.

Fuzzy, look at what you just said. 'the RW community did not find your claims to be correct'. Can we agree on what 'finding' means? It usually doesn't refer to voting, it usually refers to a deliberative process. Therefore, they did not 'find' my claims were false, or untrue, it is a little misleading to state it that way.

Voting is the deliberative process, or one of them. RW also communicated with you on your essay talkpage, on your talkpage, and on your article's talkpage.

On Rational wiki. It first began on Oct 18th for specifically being mentioned on RW, using pejoratives which were identical to pejoratives used about me on Wikipedia talk pages, and then republishing the libel and mis framing directly used by editors on Wikipedia talk pages where editorial decisions are being discussed. That alone is pretty damning. Those were anonymous editorial discussions I was having on Wikipedia. Outing someone on the internet in an anonymous setting I hardly think anyone could suggest that public shaming for anonymous editorializing is not harassment when Rational Wiki community comments, all supporting either a main article or an article keep say specifically. I mean, after all, the Rational Wiki community obviously choose themselves to expand the scope of the article, which sources to use, which to discard.

Given that you originally identified yourself as Rome Viharo, as our page on you proves, is it outing?

I can't respond to the rest due to time contraints.

Basically, take it to the talkpage, as you have already done.
 
WWHAP might have evidence; this post is, unfortunately, just assertions, which I unfortunately do not have time to respond to.
Yo Fuzzy - given your already demonstrated level of bias here, and lack of critical thinking, do you think I'm going to wait with what? (baited breath?) for you to provide some kind of validity and judgement of my so-called "assertions"? Good God man - get a grip! heh

The funny thing about Skeptics is they are so used to talking to themselves, they think they're the only thinking person in a room full of fairly intelligent people. It's strange, condescending, and delusional. Skeptics like Fuzzy here are usually unaware of what they are projecting, or the kind of father figure demeanor and attitude they so regularly present to others. You can point it out to them, like I will right here. But it doesn't register. Their mind is closed up like a clam. Total lack of self-awareness.

This is what I would call a fundamentalist. Someone with a boat load of unconscious projection, and a complete inability to perceive or think in an open-minded, objective fashion. Or perceive the possibility that they might (God Forbid!) be mistaken in their beliefs and attitude toward others.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
So it's not lying by omission, then?.

I thought it was blatantly obvious. This is when psuedoskeptics start to play dumb to save face somehow???. It is ok, I know the tricks.

So let me get this straight. When an extraordinary claim such that evolutionary programs, a particular one in fact, is replicating natural selection and producing functional information ex nihlo, is propped up us fact while important independent published research refuting that claim is withheld... it is not a lie of ommission? Is that right?
 
The RMF has 3 pending lawsuits against it as the fundraiser states. The RMF does not want any more. It is my opinion that this is true, and my opinion is based on the actions of RMF Board of Trustee members on-wiki.

Okay thank you , we've resolved that issue.


Since the RMF doesn't control RW content (except in cases where individual board members feel something is obviously libelous and take it down), they have no control over the policy or the actions of RW editors.

I think you're confusing 'brand' with content. 'Snark' is a very prominent component of the Rational Wiki brand. The brand informs *how* content may be written on the site, not just *what* kind of content gets written about. Just like the guide for Rational Wiki to publish WHAT kind of articles editors should focus on, for example articles exposing pseudoscience and quackery. While RWF may have no control over content or policy, it publishes UNDER the brand Rational Wiki which guides editors WHAT and HOW in various ways for them to publish, so in reality - this only means it has no editorial powers over the Rational Wiki community in publishing under the RW umbrella. I'm sure if rational wiki started writing articles promoting Deepak Chora's quantum healing, RWF would come in a draw a line there, right?


All RW pages do have a link to the RW:About page and RationalWiki:General disclaimer pages, which point out the issues you bring up.

Hardly a responsible disclaimer to the reader or audience, merely a legal one. Hardly effective in my case. And since you agree with me that it is 'good' that I don't explore the legal remedy, why then use legal arguments to defer my question?

Surely, we can have a responsible and ethical discussion instead, right? That's are only best hope alternative.

I'll look over that version. However, given that there's no reasons for individual changes, I can only see it as a suggestion, rather than an evidenced version of the article.

You wanted to remove the snark and asked me to help. So I removed the snark and kept pretty much the same sources you used, I just referenced them without the factually incorrect assumptions the snarky written sentence makes. I never said there is no reason for individual changes. I never said there was a reason to publish this article on Rational Wiki other than harassment.

Publishing the version of the article that you support is harassment?
No sir, that would be a compromise at best. That's what I am saying - my entry on Rational Wiki *began* with online harassment carrying over from Wikipedia and then got worse on Rational Wiki. A better article written a year and a half later does not remove the effect of the harassment.

Do you really think I would have an article on me created about OS 012, a website and a small series of online discussions that no longer exist since 2007 if I did not edit Wikipedia in 2013? You're telling me Rational Wiki is putting all this time into warning the world that an internet persona called Bubblefish, Flame Warrior and his 'pyramid scheme for world peace' was making pseudoscientific claims on a discussion forum eight years ago?



Why is it a conflict of interest if you report on us?

Because at least some of the writers of the article have a PERSONAL grudge and personal stake in publishing an embarrassing article and the article seeks to discourage the reader from discovering a claim of harassment against them.

There fore the 'claim' that I publish 'conspiracy' theories against skeptics has no credibility, yet it dramatically frames me online as a 'crank', fitting my narrative into the RW brand. Yet I clearly have evidence of harassment going from Wikipedia to Rational Wiki. Failing to disclose, in the first sentence, that I am the publisher of 'Wikipedia, we have a problem.com', while seeming to faun over claims I make on discussion forums 10 years ago shows a pattern of a publisher who wishes to misrepresent the reader about notable facts they would need to consider if the article in question was factual and evidenced based.

Is there legal support for such a position? Is the first publisher of a book on a subject more responsible than others?

Again, if we're not going to court right now, and especially if neither of us are attorneys, we should not be having a legal argument and defer to legal arguments. Rational Wiki is a first publisher of a biography of a living person. If it wants to be considered a responsible evidenced and facts based publisher - then RW has already set their own bar as to what they should aspire to as a publisher and acknowledge what sets those boundaries. Any publisher that wants to be considered a responsible publisher absolutely YES they would want to double fact check everything they were publishing about someone for the first time since only THEY are responsible for declaring third party corroboration on my biography. Think about that a little more.


What disclaimer, and why?

So the reader who discovers the article, coming in from a Google search and is not familiar with the Rational Wiki brand, does not confuse content on Rational wiki as factual based content on Wikipedia instead of satire or subversive humor that RationaMedia Foundation claims no responsibility for. Responsible Disclaimers exist so people do not get mislead. Legal disclaimers exist so attorneys dont have to worry about a lawsuit and can exist in places hard to discover so there is no effect on brand responsibility.


What specific statement does the RW article make here that you object to?

I think you're missing my core argument right now. I can't go through a tit for tat regarding every single sentence in the article here. If you go through my history of talk, you can read pretty much everything I could ever say on the subject matter. First and foremost I object to an article being published on me at all because I was anonymously editing a Wikipedia article. Secondly I object to even the inference of me being a crank and a nutjob by having a 'snarky' written article about me on Rational Wiki. Thirdly I object to the horrible misframing of my views, my work, and most importantly my integrity. I happen to place a high value on my reputation and integrity.


You mean the CAPTCHA? Not sure if that qualifies.

if it's selling ads, it qualifies. and if RW doesn't sell ads, it still is surely using it's platform to fundraise dollars. It's still generating revenue on the site.


Voting is the deliberative process, or one of them. RW also communicated with you on your essay talkpage, on your talkpage, and on your article's talkpage.

'communicated with' does not a deliberative process make. You're asking me to expect fair treatment from a online group that I openly criticize and who already view me as a potential dangerous person.

HOW does this process get resolved on Rational Wiki? By voting. It's not deliberative, it's feeling based crowdsourcing. It *feels* true to them that I'm a pseudoscience crank because they see Rupert Sheldrake and a link to something called OS 012 in 2003. They then see 'Deepak Chopra' and oh my god can they smell fresh meat. It feels true to them because they have all the right associations for the appearance of woo. It's feeling based because when they are requested to consider alternatives to that narrative, using factual evidence such as links to my personal blog where i DO promote things, or clear claims that I actually DO make - they are discarded because that's not what my narrative feels like for them. Voting reflects popular feelings, there is nothing in a vote that can inherently be deliberative.


Given that you originally identified yourself as Rome Viharo, as our page on you proves, is it outing?

NO! I'm glad you brought this up I am going to blog about this with evidence probably tmrw. I did NOT intentionally identify myself as Rome Viharo on Wikipedia. It was something in my signature from years and years ago. On my first post on Rupert's talk, I made a comment and noticed that Wikipedia published my account name Tumbleman as 'Rome Viharo' instead. I freaked out, erased my signature, said declared my intention to be anonymous. Fortunately, the day I made that comment, the talk page was also archived, meaning someone would have to be digging through archived comments to find it, and if they found it they would also discover it was unintentional.

Just in case this isn't clear already, on day 3, Wikipedia editor Manul, formerly known as Vzaak disclosed me as Rome Viharo on both the talk page and my Tumbleman user page, finding my accidental signature in an archived talk page. Just in case their is no ambiguity here in my story, I IMMEDIATELY took that into dispute resolution, directly informed Manul that was private information, I did NOT intend or want to publish my name, and informed them that activities regarding OS 012 in 2007 had nothing to do with me editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very clear about privacy rights. Someone has to 'intentionally' disclose their name. I did not intentionally disclose my name, it was accidentally disclosed, immediately removed, and I requested privacy and should have expected it.

Manul then REMOVED my personal name from talk pages, apologized and even offered me an Olive Branch, agreeing not to spread it around.

That was all in my first three days editing on Wikipedia. And three weeks later, Manul just continued spreading my name around Wikipedia anyway, my past history with OS 012, right after they said they would not.

there is no ambiguity there. that 'lie' has been told by a group of editors who are afraid of the repercussions of what they have done.

Rome
 
Last edited:
Should the Encyclopedia Brittanica include comments on their articles within the articles themselves?

No. Not Encyclopedia Brittanica. They enlist the services of academics and editors to ensure unbiased information, which is their goal. They are also transparent. The people who write for it use their real names. They have nothing to hide.

You, on the other hand are representing Rational Wiki with a pseudonym. You are Fuzzycatpotato. So we don't know who you are or what your qualifications are for writing someone else's biography. That goes for the rest of your editors as well. You are not in the same league as a professional encyclopedia. Not even close. If your league blew up, their league wouldn't hear the explosion for three days. This means that you have to go out of your way to demonstrate your honesty and credibility.

You do that by allowing people you disagree with to have their full say. Otherwise you're just a bunch of trolls screwing around. Rational Wiki isn't an encyclopedia, it's a propaganda machine. That's what happens when you pick and choose what facts to display according to your own beliefs.
 
Argument by assertion, much?
You asked yes or no questions. I responded with factual information. Providing someone with the correct information isn't being argumentative. So the answer to your current question would be "N/A".
 
Last edited:
It *feels* true to them that I'm a pseudoscience crank because they see Rupert Sheldrake and a link to something called OS 012 in 2003. They then see 'Deepak Chopra' and oh my god can they smell fresh meat. It feels true to them because they have all the right associations for the appearance of woo. It's feeling based because when they are requested to consider alternatives to that narrative, using factual evidence such as links to my personal blog where i DO promote things, or clear claims that I actually DO make - they are discarded because that's not what my narrative feels like for them. Voting reflects popular feelings, there is nothing in a vote that can inherently be deliberative.

As well as John Maguire in his "Why so serious?" blog post (the one to which I just provide a link), I feel it would be good for many Web fundamentalists to read some Robert Anton Wilson ("Prometheus Rising", "Quantum Psychology" and "New Inquisition" are the best choices). Maybe Old Bob will be able to put some doubt in their minds with his brilliant (and humorous) explanations why anything about which we pretend to be completely certain - something which "really" "is" "out there" - is largely the result of our own habitual patterns of perception, interpretation and evaluation. To be short, if someone seems to be "crank", or "pervert", or "charlatan", or "scoundrel" (put any other defamatory label here) to you and your supporters, it does not mean that one really is crank/pervert/charlatan/scoundrel/etc. You should be able to listen to the full range of diverse positions (including the position of the actual person being condemned) before applying any insultive labels to anyone.

reality-tunnel-one.jpg
 
Back
Top