There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Category talk:Bad sources
Explain closer plz[edit]
"Articles about bad sources"... I need a more coherent summary. Does it mean we use shitty sources for that article? Does it mean we sourced things poorly? Does it mean the person covered is themselves a poor source, and if so - a poor source for bunk or truth? I can't make heads or tails of this template. It needs to be explained before I can even decide what my precious heart feels about it. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing the pages it is used on, I suppose it is intended for people who are bad sources (Alex Jones, The Donald, etc)--JorisEnter (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I find that it's a confusing template, if so. It'll easily be able to be used for 90% of the people we cover on this site? I don't like this at all, buddy... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
What happened?[edit]
All of the sudden there are no articles with this category...WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cause it's a really confusing template which, besides the very nice icon, added nothing? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Alright gotcha.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)