RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

[Scepcop]

[NinjaPuppy]

[The Warrigal]

There are but a mere 81 registered members of this site of which only 16 are reputed to be regular contributors.

And such an insignificant spot in the vast world of cyberspace draws THIS ammount of vitriol?

Sweetly ignored by the author/s of this rant is the fact that some of the most prolific posters here are die hard sceptics!

Well.....I have to hand it to you Scepcop......you sure know how to piss people off!

[brett]

proud to be a member of the site - that pisses sooooooooooo many off - oh well it give the PsKeptics something to debate for months on Their sites - and from past experience on the battleground of skeptics UK - they will do this ad nauseum

[Purple Scissor]

LOL. From the looks of it, Rationalwiki has only a few regular users itself. However, RatW is set up to ridicule, and it is very open about this. We cannot condemn them for being what they are. They are more a comedy site than serious work, although once in a while you see a serious article. They make no effort to hide their twisting of facts or downright incorrect statements.

Here is WikiSynergy's page on RationalWiki: http://wikisynergy.com/wiki/Rationalwiki

Rationalwiki's page on WikiSynergy: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/WikiSynergy

Oh, I do not think they are pissed off at us. They love us, really, because they know they cannot exist without anything to work on. That is what they say at WikiSynergy. Those editors have also helped a lot at WikiSynergy technically, and they have also contributed some good material.

SCEPCOP: We Piss Skeptics Off.

Make a nice banner.

[tmtoulouse]

I am amused that you assume anyone that offers criticism must be "pissed off at you." It is very telling about your own psychology.

There seems to be a bit too much focus on the criticism leveled at you about your lack of size. You are a tiny site, there is no denying that, but notability is not really a criteria for articles at our site. You make up for your lack of impact and size by your potential for interesting material, though I think we might disagree on why it is interesting .

[Purple Scissor]

Maybe we are just happy to make a splash. But Rationalwiki is unusually good-natured about its ()skepticism. Normally such a mention would have meant we pissed someone off.

[Scepcop]

[Eteponge]

[tmtoulouse]

As far as the size of the site, I don't think it is particularly noteworthy, though that one line in the article seemed to be zeroed in by those commenting here. Which I found interesting, and a bit defensive.

And looking at the active topics, while you may not be banning skeptics you sure do talk a lot about various convoluted "tests" you want to use to vet them, and polls about whether to even allow any here at all. It is a hot topic as hot topics around here go.

[Scepcop]

[tmtoulouse]

Actually, I was underwhelmed by your treatise and do not believe it sound in principle or logic. Eventually a more thorough analysis of it will be published. My whole point, which you continue to demonstrate, is that people seemed to really zero in on the one line that mentioned the small size of the site. I find that particularly vehement defensiveness intriguing. The one overwhelming observation I have had, Scepcop, is your dedication to self-promotion and assurance that what you produce is of such amazing value to the world.

Anyway, there is not much point to over analyzing what amounts to a stub article on RW. When I have time I will work on expanding it and perhaps there will be more to discuss at that point.

[NinjaPuppy]

[brett]

[Scepcop]