Talk:RationalWiki

Possible end of Rational Wiki

A post on a Mastodon account purporting to be the Rational Wiki maintainers claims they likely will be shutting down soon. This isn't an RS, but noting here in case one discusses this.

https://mstdn.social/@RationalWiki/114338033935648709 2603:6011:9440:D700:DD9E:FBE:3111:B148 (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am guessing the lawsuit referred to is https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4406699/matthews-v-rationalwiki-foundation/

Again, not an RS, trying to find one which covered this. 69.23.57.120 (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

actually, its problem this: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69712513/anomaly-v-rationalwiki-foundation-inc/

but both should be mentioned. still trying and failing to find any rses reporting on this 69.23.57.120 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

ok, all the rational wiki lawsuits, via https://www.reddit.com/r/internetdrama/comments/1jkl2c0/rationalwiki_now_hit_by_six_lawsuits/

- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69712513/anomaly-v-rationalwiki-foundation-inc/

- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69708921/smith-v-rationalmedia-foundation/

- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69742296/warne-v-rationalwiki-foundation-inc/

- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69772253/te-nijenhuis-v-rationalwiki-foundation-inc/

- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775832/woodley-of-menie-v-rationalwiki-foundation-inc/

- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69795531/pallesen-v-rationalwiki-foundation-inc/ 69.23.57.120 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The Mastodon account is linked to on the wiki's website, so it is a real account. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Can we cite posts from official social media accounts? 69.23.57.120 (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Beyond limited uses i.e. attributed statements. 69.23.57.120 (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

As long as its not a controversial challenged statement, it should be fine.

2601:586:4600:4A90:1433:C60F:6C4F:E9E9 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

We will have to wait until the 23rd which is the due date for the rmf to respond to the first lawsuit. If no response, then we will be safe to say this is shutting down due to such default judgment.

2601:586:4600:4A90:1433:C60F:6C4F:E9E9 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

They are now attempting to bring their issue to left wing media. Something to keep an eye so we can have secondary reliable sourcing for the lawsuit drama. 2601:586:4600:4A90:EDA8:B73A:D8FB:5CE7 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

News: They have settled. All of the plantiffs article's have been deleted. So this convo is moot. 73.138.28.172 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Not really. Now the Streisand effect will set in. We should still watch out for further developments. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Deadlone has passed yet the foundation has stated nothing on whether they responded but instead stated they are under guidance from legal counsel. So we’re still on wait.2601:586:4600:4A90:6D11:242:2D5D:DFCD (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? Didn't they settle the lawsuits? Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted) 2601:586:4600:4A90:CDCC:2D13:239D:3EBE (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Updates from mastodon account

https://mstdn.social/@RationalWiki/114372140485623793

https://mstdn.social/@RationalWiki/114372148240956971 2601:586:4600:4A90:CDCC:2D13:239D:3EBE (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

hello hello, a guy with root at RationalWiki here. The RW site is back up because I did magic to block the AI scraper bots. Now humans can read RW, yay! There is collateral damage - none of Internet Archive, archive.today or Ghostarchive can archive RW pages. This is their own fault. I have contacted all of them with a suggested fix. archive.is won't apply it because they have their own reasons to do stuff that way, I'm trying to think of workarounds - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

What is 'root' in this context (for those of us who are non-specialists)? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"root" means admin account on a Linux server, i.e. network engineer, not wiki admin. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

"AI" scraper bots actively harming human knowledge again. Glad to hear RW is back up. Sad that it's because of the chatbot army. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I've allowed access for the archivers but blocked the bots, archiving RW should mostly work now - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep. I agree StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

none of Internet Archive, archive.today or Ghostarchive can archive RW pages.

Good. That information gave me so much joy that I have now donated to the Internet Archive, something I have never done before. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Uh what? I should note that the archiving of RW has been fixed since that comment was posted. I should also note that the talk page is for discussion of the article about the site, not about the site itself. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm going to remind everyone here, no amount of original research or (non-notable) opinion amounts to crap on here. The question is what sources say. As has been brought up in AfD, there's not really a lot of WP:RS even covering RW at depth, just barely enough to (arguably) meet WP:GNG, and without a RS saying they are closing RW down, we can't say it is closing (even though it is clearly a dying piece of Web 2.0 history). Even using the site itself a primary reference is dangerous because it is an open wiki (that has historically been extremely easy to get sysop rights on, not that they have a lot of serious newcomers anymore). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• RationalWiki Main Page.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Liberal? Progressive?

The last couple of paragraphs under "Content" strike me as odd. While it is true that conspiracy theories, misinformation and pseudoscience is heavily skewed towards the right (and indeed, in the past 10 years have become the essence of right wing "thought"), debunking that sort of bullshit is not a politically partisan take. Conservapedia and Rationalwiki are not in fact the left and right sides of the same coin. Conservapedia is right wing bullshit. Rationalwiki is like wikipedia, but without the constrains to feign civility in the face of nonsense ideas that are completely beyond the pale. As many things, this is not a right vs left issue. This is a right vs normalcy issue. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Whatever your feelings on the site, the study is just saying that RationalWiki is debunking such theories, misinformation etc. through a liberal lens, something I think even its most ardent and supportive users wouldn't dispute. Pointing this out is not saying it's equal or equivalent in quality and morality to what's seen on Conservapedia, a site I should note RationalWiki was made in response to. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The wording still frames it like a both-sides issue, when it's not. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The wording reflecfs the source it's using, so take your umbrage with that instead. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW many edits from right-wingers have slipped by over the years, so there is actually a lot of right-wing content at RW, believe it or not. Some of it is insidious, some is not. Also, RW editors are so acutely aware of the criticism RW receives for having an alleged left-wing bias, that they tend to be very accommodating to right-lite views, as long as they're not blatantly offensive. Many of them are libertarians who are ashamed of where mainstream libertarianism has drifted to.2001:569:5004:9B00:D3A4:6209:5D5F:686E (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

RationalWiki elected at least two libertarian moderators over the last few years. The idea that they have a left-wing bias is ridiculous. 2804:14C:5B73:87CC:4883:8ADA:9F4A:F065 (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No amount of reasoning will change what the sources say. Sources are boss here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Current status

Will note that there are presently ongoing problems with accessing the site ('Error 503 Backend fetch failed [+ some other text]' seems to be the main presentation). Any ideas on what is going on/can be done? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait until reliable sources talk about that? (You know that this page is about improving the Wikipedia article about RationalWiki, and about nothing else?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

'Significant issues with the website over a sufficient timeframe' can be WP-worthy. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Just 'Significant issues with the website over a sufficient timeframe'? It still needs to be reported in reliable sources to be WP-worthy, not sure why you're claiming otherwise? Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Is 'attempting to look at the site on occasion' sufficient? Also see . Jackiespeel (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Is 'attempting to look at the site on occasion' sufficient?

...no? Why would they be? Again, reporting in reliable sources is important here, not just what the site itself says. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It's still down and there is no news. ~2025-35205-40 (talk) ~2025-35205-40 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Mainly - flagged up an issue so that people involved in the topic could pursue the matter as appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

On RW itself, on-and-off sluggishness and downtime is being attributed to web scraping by LLM vendors, which has the effect of a DDoS and was at first confused for other kinds of DDoS. (There's discussions of DDoS and mitigation over the past few years, with a recent period of the server being hit unusually hard.) There's also Mastodon discussions like these ones (RW server admin, and RW account). Still no notable sources covering the situation that I know of. --JoelKP (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Shall we say - RationalWiki has occasional 'issues and outages' (for whatever reasons) and this time the 'blockage' lasted sufficiently long for a query to be made here, as those more actively involved with the subject may know/be able to find out more and/or keep an eye on the situation. I know there is some overlapping membership: and, more generally WP can be used as a point of first resort. I will go back to my usual areas of interest. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking for this information to be included in the article? If so, we'd still need reliable secondary sources, especially because RW is not the only site with these kinds of outages. Harryhenry1 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Originally a question about a persisting problem as others might know more; and RW is probably more likely to have 'issues' than other parts of the wikiverse (which is probably the most that can be said on the article page).

Sometimes a comment or discussion on a talk page is all that is needed. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

It just seems odd to me to use a talk page to discuss the subject, not the article about the subject, hence my questions. Do you understand my perspective? Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Questions about the subject of a WP page do get put on the relevant talk page: and in this case 'something might have had to be done' with the article (if the RW situation had persisted or changed). The 'glitch' has been resolved and future readers of the article and talk page do not need to repeat the question. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Scientific skeptic Perspective in the lede

The Wikipedia article on scientific skeptics uses the phrases “scientific skeptics” and “scientific skepticism”, both of which seem like decent enough as proclaimed descriptors of that school of thought…but why does the lede here say “scientific skeptic” as singular? It is very difficult to intuit what that means (the singular nature implies science is skeptical, not that it is a group of people who are skeptical nominally under a certain set of scientific principles) Consensur2 (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)