Search function broken
See e.g. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Penn&fulltext=Search&profile=default&redirs=0 which finds no results --220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- "There is a page named "Penn" on this wiki", it sez here. Pippa (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 Unprofessionnal insults
I really think this wiki would be taken a lot more seriously if most of the pages didn't contain more subjective insults than actual facts. Who thought it was a good idea to openly mock organizations, people and views all the time? I mean, I mostly agree, but I wouldn't call someone I hate an asshole in an official paper, I'd write facts, even probably be biased, but I'd let the reader figure out the man or woman is an asshole from some actual contents. That's not very professional, most of the time I can't even figure out what this person did wrong because it's just insults...— Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
- It's a wiki written by volunteers with wildly varying degrees of knowledge, experience and writing ability, so there's bound to be plenty of shit articles. Have a look here for some of the better stuff, and please feel free to create an account if there's anything you'd like to improve or create.
- For the record, I much prefer fact-based mockery to flat-out insults. In a civilised society, ridicule and laughter are usually far more potent weapons against the cranks and the crazies than any amount of anger or bile. Robledo (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- An an anonymous user who sometimes reads RationalWiki articles, this is my main issue I have with this wiki. Listen, I get that if you're scientifically literate it's frustrating to see people spreading scientifically false information, but you shouldn't let that frustration affect the tone of your writing. Many articles here are written in a tone that can sometimes come through as immature and undignified, which makes the reader question the integrity of the writer (and ultimately, the wiki). I hope that some day RationalWiki will have a style guide suggestion that would encourage articles to be more neutral and encyclopedic in tone. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 RW apparently on par with HuffPost
- This discussion was moved to talk:Bradlee Dean. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 08:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
... the summer solstice.
 I suggest a change on the purpose section
I do not think that antiscience is a movement, I just had one and I should know! It is an intro page so I hestiate even a minor edit without talk
How about "phenomenon" ?
So do we get a sysop involved to actually change it? How? Purebread who? 03:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I will change this, but I need the RW path to the Welcome section of the Main page. Purebread who? 03:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)