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 ![]() ![]() |
Forum:Websites and Webshites
Following a discussion on our facebook group, it has come to my attention that the whitelist and blacklist of websites/resources we have includes a lot of news sources in the blacklist, but not too many in the whitelist. In the discussion on the facebook group, another user put forth the idea that we should give each a star rating based on credibility. Obviously, we could merge this into our articles on each of the sources, which will explain why we rated it as such. Some, like the guardian, might get, say, 4 stars for being generally reliable, but not 5, because of the strange thing they seem to have with their commenting, and Judaism, etc (just an example). This could be a significant addition to the site. What do you think? --P3A58NT86 10:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)