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 ![]() ![]() |
Debate:Is the Sam Harris page more biased than others?
Proposition[edit]
I feel like the rationalwiki`s article on Sam Harris is somewhat more biased than others. In fact the whole article criticizes Harris(which is something that conservapedia would do). Harris is a vocal critic of religion. He has even gone to great lengths to link Science with morality. I dont think its fair that the whole article is just about criticism. It`s biased.— Unsigned, by: Nerdfighter / talk / contribs
- While we never claim to be unbiased, most people here agree our Sam Harris page is really bad. Christopher (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- So fix it. Bicyclewheel
15:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was just repeating what I've seen people saying, the first I knew of his existence was reading the RW page on him so I'm probably not the best person to fix it. Christopher (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- So fix it. Bicyclewheel