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.
Yes you do. And highly annoying ones at that.
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.