YMMV / Rational Wiki

  • Acceptable Targets:
    • Pretty much anyone who encourages fundamentalism and pseudoscience. Conservapedia and its management are the biggest targets on the site.
    • The "What is going on in..." pages had no love for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
    • Similarly, any time Israel so much as coughs, a "what is going on in..." entry will denounce its inherent evilness
  • Anvilicious:
    • Religion gets hit with this hard. It is rare not to find any article not mocking faith, usually Christianity. Islam got the same treatment but much less of it nowadays due to current social justice movements which combat against Islamophobia. This can be quite ironic because both religions are offshoots of Judaism that agree on many of the same things.
    • Incredibly blatant on any page about atheism which they have plenty of and one of the articles they regard as the most important is an FAQ for newly deconverted atheists
    • Articles on the subject of feminism tend to be strongly in support of the movement, and very visibly so. Similarly, the wiki is staunchly anti-MRA. Please refrain from discussing whether or not they are correct in doing so.
      • Averted with their article on radical feminism, which is full of criticism about the movement. This is fairly recent though since Rational Wiki was largely skeptical of gender essentialism in the past and tended to sway in favour of radical feminist ideologies as evidenced through the article's edit history. Now they fully support transgender ideologies and other liberal feminist views. This is due to a mass migration of tumblr uses to the site (who are mostly liberal, third wave feminists). They even use tumblr posts by teenage users as "objective sources" to prove their point on a complex political movement rather than rely on statistics, actual theory, or peer-reviewed journals.
    • The wiki is also strongly pro-vegetarianism, to the extent of including a very hefty essay explicitly oriented to defend its moral bases. Interestingly, veganism, on the other hand, is much less represented on the page.
  • Appeal to Flattery: The title of the site, as to some it seems to insinuate that the site itself is always rational and that being associated with or supporting the site speaks well of the person who accepts does.
  • Arbitrary Skepticism: in a literal sense, pretty much inherent in a user-generated encyclopedia pushing (against) a broad position, users are going to focus skepticism on ideas they find harmful or distasteful, c.f. Acceptable Targets. Also, in averting Hard on Soft Science (or non-scientific fields), certain fields, for example, various types of cultural studies which have very different standards of evidence in academia from fields such as medicine, in turn are scrutinized differently in the encyclopedia, despite the encyclopedia's ostensible foundational principles of skepticism and scientific thought, where truths should be proven regardless of field, not just taken for granted when stated illa dixit when the field is less science-oriented note . So while in theory skeptics despise testimonial evidence (e.g., the evidence provided by a "memoire", "experiences", "biography", etc.), and distrust news reports on more complicated subjects, in practice those sources, when combined with such pillars of thought as blogs, magazines and Cracked are apparently considered just dandy when used to refute unpopular arguments or positions. In contrast, when refuting anti-vaxers, the same encyclopedia is perfectly capable of using high-quality research published in top medical journals like the Lancet, JAMA and the NEJM.
  • Broken Base:
    • Between the New Atheism and Atheism Plus movements. Atheism Plus was originally under the New Atheist movement but the former split off from the latter after getting fed up with their continuous sexism and racism. Both groups can be found on Rational Wiki engaging in edit wars all over the place.
    • Rational Wiki's growing fondness for liberal feminism and disdain for radical feminism. This has created a divide between Rational Wiki's radical and liberal feminists, especially since radical feminism was fairly tolerated on Rational Wiki before. Now a page about "TERFS" has been created and radical feminists have been banned from editing articles discussing their politics; leaving the articles completely one-sided.
    • Naturally on the Arab-Israeli Conflict - now mostly resolved in favor of one side with most of the other either banned or inactive. Do not read their article on Hamas or Israel if you are a supporter of Israel.
    • Some users have accused contributors of whitewashing articles about Islam. Many articles about Islamic dictators and terrorists lack the usual snark that site is well-known for, and some articles even push for a positive interpretation of their actions. Christianity is always being poked fun of but there is noticeably much less criticism aimed towards Islam, despite it being the second largest religion in the world. It becomes even more apparent when compared to much smaller religions such as Mormonism which is always being ripped apart by the user base. Some argue that this is to stop misconceptions of Islam and prevent Islamophobia but others think this is dishonest and extremely biased - with Islam getting "special treatment" over other faith systems.
    • Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton both have fans on the site and said fans often don't see eye to eye.
    • The website growing more "politically correct". Granted, Rational Wiki has always been liberal to mock Conservapedia but it has come to the point where people have accused the political agendas having obscured the main purpose of the website. Some contributors believe it is because of the growing number of tumblr users coming over; with skepticism being thrown away in favor of whatever tumblr users approve of instead. And then you have the people who feel that favoring any ideology over another contradicts the idea of being rational, turning the wiki into a total contradiction.
      • As a left-wing site, it has also come under scrutiny for not being left-wing enough. More radical ideologies that were embraced by the site in its early days have been cast aside to appease new contributors in favor of moderate social liberalism.
    • The constant mocking of indigenous religions as primitive and ridiculous but strong anti-racism slant on the site has led to a lot of irony and confusion.
  • Critical Research Failure:
    • Happens all the the time with their articles on radical feminism: Their claim that second-wave feminism is not "intersectional" completely flies in the face of how the very concept of intersectionality was formed within the second-wave. They think that lesbians dislike the term "queer" because they hate bisexual people and this is just a recent "radical feminist" development on the internet when in reality their main objection to the label is that it is a slur and this debate about the inappropriateness has actually been going on since the 1970s in gay communities. They also liken the term "gender critical" to "race realism" even though the two have nothing in common - the former is against social constructs while the latter strongly believes in them.
    • Calling various Christian holidays "pagan festivities" or "pagan celebrations dressed up in Christianity" which has been proven wrong countless times by historians. They were Christian traditions in origin; they only adopted pagan rituals to make the religion more acceptable to pre-Christian peoples.
    • Their page on the Marxist concept of "false consciousness" defines it as basically anything that disagrees with communist doctrine. Not only is that the wrong definition (although, in Rational Wiki's defense, it has been used that way by later dogmatized communist groups), but the term's actual definition, 'an ideology that masks financial and economic relationships', is the very raison d'etre of Rational Wiki itself. A website dedicated to debunking and exposing false consciousness contains a page criticizing the concept of false consciousness as a false ideology. Try and wrap your head around that one.
  • Crosses the Line Twice: "Indigo child" is not to be confused with "In dingo child", which is "what your child might become if you misplace it in Australia."
  • Franchise Original Sin: Due in part to having been created in response to another blatantly political website with diametrically opposing views (Conservapedia), the site has always been politicized, with notably a clear feminist slant (though the more general line was unclear and depended heavily on individual editors). It got only increasing as new controversies arose within the atheist/secular movement.
  • Growing the Beard: The site started out as just a mocking opposite of Conservapedia, made to be as deliberately obnoxious and overly left-wing as possible. However once it moved on from its obsession with Conservapedia and gained a more well-researched, Deadpan Snarker tone, the site became much more enjoyable and helpful.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/RationalWiki