From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Rational wiki)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A brain in square brackets!
I thought this
was supposed to be

RationalMedia Foundation (RMF)

RationalWiki (RW) is a community working together to explore and provide information about a range of topics centered around science, skepticism, and critical thinking. RW is owned by the RationalMedia Foundation (RMF), an incorporated 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The RMF operates the infrastructure that keeps RW running and holds its associated trademarks and copyrights, but it does not govern the community or any content the community produces.

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

We have 7,994 articles for your enjoyment.


See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:History

RationalWiki 2.0 was created as an open editing wiki on May 22, 2007. The rest is history.

Scope and statistics[edit]

RW stats on active editors and edits, as of July 2016. Click to expand.

RW is a fairly popular site, especially among online skeptical resources. By November 2012, RW's traffic had reached about 32,000 unique visitors per day[1] and since 2013, RW has had 700-1,000 monthly editors and 15,000-30,000 monthly edits.[2]

Also since 2013, RW's Alexa rank (a measure accurate only in a broad sense) has hovered between 15,000th and 25,000th most popular website on the entire Internet, which translates to about 4 million-ish unique monthly visitors.[3][4][5] This puts RW above other skeptical sites like Quackwatch,[6] Skeptoid,[7] and Freethought Blogs,[8] though still below big players like PolitiFact[9] and Snopes.[10]

However, RW's objective isn't to collect views in and of itself (since the truth isn't a popularity contest), especially since we don't sell anything, nor run any type of ads in order to monetize hits. Instead, our intention is for every individual view to prove a chance for us to disseminate accurate information against the flood of pseudoscience and anti-intellectualism that permeates much of the public discourse today.

For us, more viewers simply translate into more chances to help dissuade pseudoscientific and fundamentalist thinking, and to rally the interest of still more dedicated editors to the cause of scientific skepticism (thus resulting in the proliferation of more and better skeptical content — here, as well as in society generally).

Online source reliability watchdog Media Bias/Fact Check ranks RationalWiki very favorably[11] — giving us a "HIGH" rating in their review of our site. This quality grade entails that:[12]

The source is almost always factual, sources to mostly credible low biased information and makes immediate corrections to incorrect information.

Additionally, it's worth noting that RationalWiki is deemed to have a slight centre-left bias compared to Wikipedia, and that's no surprise, as we explicitly do not aim for a neutral point of view. It is important to note that the comparison made here to Wikipedia is not to be confused with us considering RationalWiki an encyclopedia, as RationalWiki is not supposed to be a traditional encyclopedia. Since religious fundamentalism and far-right extremism, which RationalWiki strongly opposes, lean strongly to the right, a slight centre-left bias may emerge.

RationalWiki is also based in the United States (as are many individual editors), where the Religious Right and Christian fundamentalism have featured prominently for many decades. In the American context, broadly anti-science attitudes are somewhat more prevalent among conservatives than liberals (the reverse being true in some other countries),[13][14] which may help to explain our coverage. However, RationalWiki criticizes crank ideas that are considered to be left-wing as well (e.g. Stalin apologetics or some New Age movements), and any editors who wish to advance the site's mission are also welcome regardless of background.

So, do any 'real' news outlets cite RationalWiki?[edit]

See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:Mentions

Yes, certainly. Since RationalWiki's inception, we've been featured in articles, op-ed pieces, and news reports — either quoted verbatim or referenced outright as a source for the article's claims — by a slew of online and mainstream media outlets worldwide, including:

Scholarly journals, too, have cited or even recommended RationalWiki, including:

What is a RationalWiki article?[edit]

See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?

While RW uses software originally developed for a well-known online encyclopedia, it is important to realize that RW is not trying to be an encyclopedia. While many of RW's articles may look like encyclopedia entries, RW goes much further – it encourages original research and opinion formation.

  • The community has embraced the concept of wikis by creating an information source out of the collaborative editing of thousands of people.
  • By encouraging original research and essays, RW has also incorporated many aspects of the blogging community.
  • Discussion among members is facilitated on many levels such as debate articles, specific discussions on talk pages, and just coming together to talk about whatever is on our minds at the Saloon Bar. This focus on discussion captures the essence of Internet forums.
  • While RW has a serious mission, it is ultimately a volunteer project — and as such, an important way to keep interest high is to ensure that our articles are fun both to read and write.
  • One of many ways which distinguishes RW from encyclopedias (e.g. Wikipedia) is that we openly avoid any pretentions to neutrality on controversial subjects. When one side of an issue has the scientific consensus to back it up, and the other clearly doesn't, part of our mission is placing the two side by side and calling it like we sees it.


Hop on board the Trump Train Goat-Cart!
See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:Community Standards § Mobocracy

Who runs this place? Ultimately, nobody. It's a wiki.

Decisions are made by the will of whoever shows up and does stuff. Mobocracy and do-ocracy rule the day. Most users who've been around a while and aren't utterly incompetent are sysops. The most effective place to be outraged is on the talk page of the article you are outraged about. People may well engage with you in a relevant fashion.

A few users are moderators, elected by the community. They don't like work, so will do anything other than be your go-to parent.

In RW's fifteen-year long run, the extreme case in which the board of trustees has been forced to ban an editor — for libel of a level that could have attracted lawsuits to the RMF itself — has only presented itself twice. The board members don't like to work either, so don't expect this to happen again any time soon.[citation NOT needed]


See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:Pissed at us

RW has numerous critics, roughly divided in two (overlapping) groups: those that take issue with the content and those who take issue with the style. Both tend to quickly degenerate into "so why do they call it RationalWiki, then?" This may be based on a slight confusion between rationalisation and rationalism — as no one ever thinks they're being irrational, they're likely to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being irrational. In principle, this point extends to RW itself, whose name implies that everyone who doesn't follow its POV is irrational — making the choice of title somewhat unfortunate and ironic. The title of RationalWiki is not meant to imply that anyone who disagrees is irrational, but rather that this site is based on the philosophy of rationalism, in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically logic) and to empirical observation.

The content critics are typically the fans of people or subjects that RW doesn't speak favorably of. Supporters of noted politician Ron Paul certainly aren't fans,[120] angry that someone, somewhere dares not declare Ron Paul to be the Second Coming. Ayn Rand fans do much the same. Other criticism of content is often directed at shorter and less complete articles.[121] RW's rating system goes part way to rectifying the issue of lower-quality articles, but is implemented in a completely ad hoc wikilike fashion.

RW's style is frequently criticized, with some objecting to the odd sense of humor and getting upset that people aren't taking their idea of rationalism seriously. LessWrong bloggers and commentators in particular find it annoyingly irrational (with prior probability ). LessWrong's founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, once defended RW as a potential recruiting ground for hardcore rationalists but mostly as "clueless."[122] Other issues with style include the running debate over whether RW's self-touted viewpoint, "SPOV," means "Scientific Point of View (plus snark)" or "Snarky Point of View (plus science)."

Readers of Rationalwiki vs readers of the Yellow Press.jpeg
To boldly go where no wiki has gone before!

Language sections[edit]

See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:Languages

While the overwhelming majority of RW's editors are English-speaking, RW also has articles in other languages​, namely:

Helpful links[edit]

See also[edit]

Icon fun.svg For those of you in the mood, RationalWiki has a fun article about RationalWiki.
The truth about RationalWiki
Magic the Gathering™ Card

Want to read this in another language?[edit]

Pokud hledáte tento článek v českém jazyce, můžete ho najít na RationalWiki (česky).

RationalWiki (español) es la versión en español de este artículo.

Si vous voulez cet article en français, il peut être trouvé à RationalWiki (français).

Русскоязычным вариантом данной статьи является статья РациоВики

Ak hľadáte tento článok v slovenčine, môžete ho nájsť na RationalWiki (slovensky).

RationalWiki (中文)是本文章的中文版本

External links[edit]


  1. Server admin Tmtoulouse remarks on RW traffic.
  2. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:RW_Stats_16-Jul.png
  3. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/rationalwiki.org
  4. http://www.rank2traffic.com/rationalwiki.org
  5. http://siterankdata.com/rationalwiki.org
  6. http://siterankdata.com/quackwatch.com
  7. http://siterankdata.com/skeptoid.com
  8. http://siterankdata.com/freethoughtblogs.com
  9. http://siterankdata.com/politifact.com
  10. http://siterankdata.com/snopes.com
  11. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/
  12. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
  13. (January 28, 2022). "Trust in science is becoming more polarized, survey finds". University of Chicago News.
  14. Wong, Carissa (2024-02-14). "Largest post-pandemic survey finds trust in scientists is high". Nature. doiWikipedia:10.1038/d41586-024-00420-1. 
  15. (June 8, 2017). "Hitler, emojis y signos de exclamación: las leyes no escritas que gobiernan internet". BBC Mundo (in Spanish).
  16. Liz Klimas (August 5, 2013). "Blaze Debunk: Obama 'Regime' Rumored to Shoot Down F-16s Sent to White House in Retaliation for Emails Exposing Colin Powell's Alleged Affair". Blaze Media.
  17. Michael Andor Brodeur (June 22, 2017). "The rise of the online altcyclopedia". The Boston Globe.
  18. (December 18, 2013). "Freemen-On-The-Land: How A Self-Proclaimed 'Sovereign Citizen' Was Evicted From A Calgary Home". The Canadian Press (agency wire; served via HuffPost).
  19. Cathy Ammlung (March 29, 2017). "Everyone you hate is not equivalent to Hitler". Carroll County Times.
  20. James Kirk Wall (July 17, 2016). "Dealing with Young Earth Creationists – Use Science or Ridicule?". ChicagoNow.
  21. Greg Jayne (December 20, 2014). "Pundits claim victory in imaginary War on Christmas". The Columbian.
  22. Patrick Stokes (June 26, 2015). "Why conspiracy theories aren’t harmless fun". The Conversation.
  23. Philippe Huneman (November 9, 2015). "Anti-science ? OGM et climat, les sceptiques ne sont pas les mêmes (1)". The Conversation (in French).
  24. Peter Wheeland (October 26, 2016). "Recognizing rape culture and its many deniers". Cult MTL.
  25. (May 30, 2022). "The Strange and Terrifying Ideas of Neoreactionaries". Current Affairs.
  26. Felix Kalvesmaki (January 29, 2020). "People believe cartoons predicted Kobe Bryant’s death, coronavirus". The Daily Dot.
  27. Michael Lazzaro (August 11, 2016). "Grotesque Trump ally Roger Stone pipes up with yet another 'Hillary Clinton killed someone' story". Daily Kos.
  28. Jasmine Kazlauskas (March 24, 2019). "Terminally ill mum who hid cancer claims tumour shrunk 75% after 'alternative care'". Mirror.
  29. Rishu Bhardwaj (October 10, 2016). "Misnomer preserved with Columbus". Daily Titan.
  30. John Mashey (February 5, 2015). "Rand Paul and Strange Associations with Anti-Science". DeSmog.
  31. Susan Selasky (July 25, 2019). "Anti-Semitic flyers posted in Birmingham, Royal Oak by neo-Nazi hate group". Detroit Free Press.
  32. Jaime Rubio Hancock (January 2, 2017). "Las leyes que gobiernan las opiniones en internet". El País (in Spanish).
  33. (2017). "Las 8 leyes de Internet y los comicios en Edomex". El Universal (in Spanish).
  34. Juanne Pili (May 29, 2017). "La storia di Boriska, il bambino marziano: tanta fantasia ma nessuna prova". Fanpage.it (in Italian).
  35. Juan José R. Calaza (2017). "Chemtrails, violines y dar gato por liebre". Faro de Vigo (in Spanish).
  36. Franklin Einspruch (September 6, 2016). "Cultural Marxists Are Actually Pomofascists". The Federalist.
  37. Lef Apostolakis (February 2, 2017). "King's lecturer sparks racism row". Felix.
  38. Jonathan Berr (June 27, 2019). "Facebook Takes Down 'Official' Milo Yiannopoulos Page Put Up After His Ban". Forbes.
  39. Dennis Mersereau (July 15, 2014). "Weather Hoaxer Threatens Facebook After His Page Is Taken Down". Gawker.
  40. Andrew Tarantola (April 2, 2014). "Giz Explains: Why Freezing Yourself Is A Terrible Way To Achieve Immortality". Gizmodo Australia.
  41. Dana Nuccitelli (July 25, 2016). "These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really." The Guardian.
  42. Ian Miles Cheong (May 30, 2017). "Feminists Attack Black Male Physicist as 'Misogynist' After Keynote at Developer Conference". Heat Street.
  43. Jef Rouner (April 30, 2015). "The 10 Best Houston Conspiracy Theories". The Houston Press.
  44. Chris Stedman (September 17, 2012). "Atheists Ignore Islamophobia at their Peril". HuffPost.
  45. James Michael Nichols (September 6, 2016). "Cher Calls Out Trans-Exclusionary Group Of So-Called 'Feminists'". HuffPost.
  46. Kelly Kazek (April 1, 2016). "What is a hoop snake, and why did these Alabamians think they saw one?". The Huntsville Times. Alabama Media Group.
  47. Angelique Serrao (April 10, 2012). "Activist tries to get transparency in banking sector". Independent Online.
  48. Stephanie Pappas (May 9, 2018). "This Horrifying AI Thought Experiment Got Elon Musk a Date". Live Science.
  49. Stephanie Simon (June 19, 2007). "A conservative's answer to Wikipedia". The Los Angeles Times.
  50. (February 7, 2017). "'Elvis Is Alive' And 11 More Top Conspiracy Theories". Malaysian Digest.
  51. Jack Werner (May 25, 2014). "Så sätter nätet spinn på vandringssägnerna". Metro (in Swedish).
  52. Tom McKay (September 30, 2015). "7 Tips on Gender Relations, According to Men's Rights Activists and the 'Manosphere'". Mic.
  53. (July 18, 2014). "'Aliens on the Moon' TV Show Adds Weird UFO Twists to Apollo Tales". NBC News.
  54. Jeet Heer (March 12, 2016). "Following in his father’s footsteps, Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a white supremacist." The New Republic.
  55. Marc Abrahams (May 10, 2023). "Scientists wonder if space tourists will want to have sex in orbit". New Scientist.
  56. Mehdi Hasan (November 28, 2011). "Debts, deficits and Toby Young: Mehdi Hasan responds to a critic". The New Statesman.
  57. Park MacDougald (June 14, 2016). "Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump". New York.
  58. Nik Bonopartis (April 1, 2016). "Open Carry At Republican National Convention: Why Not?". Opposing Views.
  59. Jason Rhode (August 11, 2017). "Weird Science: David Brooks Gets It Wrong on Google". Paste.
  60. Matt Mikus (June 30, 2017). "Tech Talk: The laws of the digital frontier". The Petoskey News-Review.
  61. Mark Lord (August 18, 2016). "Vaccinations are key to good health worldwide". The Queens Chronicle.
  62. Tom Boggioni (January 15, 2015). "Gamergate's savage defender is a tortured soul who turns Tori Amos songs into terrible poetry". The Raw Story.
  63. Sophia A. McClennen (December 17, 2016). "Degeneration nation: It takes a village of idiots to raise a kakistocracy like Donald Trump's". Salon.
  64. Harriet Hall (January 31, 2017). "Pink Himalayan Sea Salt: An Update". Science-Based Medicine.
  65. Harriet Hall (June 30, 2015). "Answering Cancer Quackery: The Sophisticated Approach to True Believers". Science-Based Medicine.
  66. David Auerbach (July 17, 2014). "The Most Terrifying Thought Experiment of All Time". Slate.
  67. Phil Plait (June 26, 2008). "Oh, snap! Creationist smackdown". Slate.
  68. Jean-Marc Manach (March 20, 2017). "Le renseignement militaire et les «petits pédés» de 4chan". Slate (in French).
  69. "Search Results: RationalWiki". Snopes. They have, somewhat uniquely, cited RationalWiki countless times.
  70. Michael Fallow (December 1, 2016). "Those who would weaken the woo". The Southland Times.
  71. Tom Chivers (October 23, 2009). "Internet rules and laws: the top 10, from Godwin to Poe". The Telegraph.
  72. Joe Romm (September 26, 2016). "Hermione vs. Voldemort: What deniers can teach us about how to debate Trump". ThinkProgress.
  73. Paul Jacob (September 24, 2017). "Christophobia Down Under". Townhall.
  74. Geoff Olson (October 11, 2012). "Prisoner's Dilemma plays out in reality Bachelor Pad". The Vancouver Courier.
  75. Adi Robertson (September 2, 2015). "Time Cube is gone. The Verge.
  76. (February 15, 2016). "Nettets moralpoliti". VG (in Norwegian).
  77. http://www.wakemag.org/sections/features/are-you-out-of-your-mind
  78. David Gushee (August 20, 2015). "Donald Trump and the politics of white male anger". The Washington Post.
  79. Andrew Beaujon (August 17, 2022). "We're Pretty Sure All of These DC Conspiracy Theories Are True". Washingtonian.
  80. Lili Loofbourow (September 27, 2016). "The Trump Glossary". The Week.
  81. Gianluca Dotti (June 14, 2016). "La bufala climatica delle onde scalari". Wired (in Italian).
  82. JoEllen Schilke (July 28, 2017). "Fact checking websites to help get through the daily news". WMNF.
  83. Friedman, Hershey H. (January 2021). "Is Higher Education Making Students Dumb and Dumber?" (in en). The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 80 (1): 53–77. doiWikipedia:10.1111/ajes.12372. ISSN 0002-9246. 
  84. Huneman, Philippe; Vorms, Marion (2018). "Is a Unified Account of Conspiracy Theories Possible?". Argumenta (6). doiWikipedia:10.23811/54.arg2017.hun.vor. ISSN 2465-2334. 
  85. Wright, Lauren (2015). "Magic Beans and Dragons: The war against pseudoscience and misinformation". AQ: Australian Quarterly 86 (2): 10–40. ISSN 1443-3605. 
  86. Lowenstein, E.J.; Sidlow, R. (December 2018). "Cognitive and visual diagnostic errors in dermatology: part 1" (in en). British Journal of Dermatology 179 (6): 1263–1269. doiWikipedia:10.1111/bjd.16932. 
  87. Reiss, Dorit; Weithorn, Lois (2015-08-01). "Responding to the Childhood Vaccination Crisis: Legal Frameworks and Tools in the Context of Parental Vaccine Refusal". Buffalo Law Review 63 (4): 881. ISSN 0023-9356. 
  88. Wilkins, Alan L.; Whetten, David A. (2012). "BYU and Religious Universities in a Secular Academic World". BYU Studies 51 (3). 
  89. French, Aaron (2018). "The Mandela Effect and New Memory". Correspondences 6 (2). 
  90. Letrud, Kåre (July 2022). "Do we Know it When we See it? A Review of ‘Pseudoscience’ Patterns of Usage" (in en). Episteme 20 (2): 479–496. doiWikipedia:10.1017/epi.2022.17. ISSN 1742-3600. 
  91. Nieminen, Petteri; Ryökäs, Esko; Mustonen, Anne-Mari (January 2014). "Systematic analysis of creationist claims source criticism, context, argumentation and experiential thinking". European Journal of Science and Theology 10 (4): 4-26. 
  92. Imhoff, Roland; Lamberty, Pia Karoline (May 2017). "Too special to be duped: Need for uniqueness motivates conspiracy beliefs" (in en). European Journal of Social Psychology 47 (6): 724–734. doiWikipedia:10.1002/ejsp.2265. ISSN 0046-2772. 
  93. Nieminen, Petteri; Mustonen, Anne-Mari (April 2014). "Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory". Evolution: Education and Outreach 7 (1): 11. doiWikipedia:10.1186/s12052-014-0011-6. ISSN 1936-6434. 
  94. Savić, Dobrica (January 2017). "Managing diversity in the international nuclear information system". The Grey Journal (TGJ) 13 (1): 55-62. 
  95. Makrides, Vasilios N. (November 2016). "Orthodox Christian rigorism: attempting to delineate a multifaceted phenomenon". Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society 2 (2): 216–252. doiWikipedia:10.14220/23642807-00202012. ISSN 2365-3140. 
  96. Walton, Douglas (2020). "Profiles of Dialogue for Amphiboly" (in en). Informal Logic 40 (1): 3–45. doiWikipedia:10.22329/il.v40i1.5997. ISSN 2293-734X. 
  97. Dudley, Michael (2017). "A Library Matter of Genocide: The Library of Congress and the Historiography of the Native American Holocaust". The International Indigenous Policy Journal 8 (2). doiWikipedia:10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.9. 
  98. Fasce, Angelo (2019). "Are Pseudosciences Like Seagulls? A Discriminant Metacriterion Facilitates the Solution of the Demarcation Problem" (in en). International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 32 (3-4): 155–175. doiWikipedia:10.1080/02698595.2020.1767891. ISSN 0269-8595. 
  99. "2013–2014 National Health Law Moot Court Competition Problem" (in en). Journal of Legal Medicine 35 (3): 355–384. 2014. doiWikipedia:10.1080/01947648.2014.936260. ISSN 0194-7648. 
  100. Cortada, James W.; Aspray, William (2019). "The Magic of Debunking: Interrogating Fake Facts in the United States since the Eighteenth Century" (in en). Library & Information History 35 (3): 133–150. doiWikipedia:10.1080/17583489.2019.1668155. ISSN 1758-3489. 
  101. van Deventer, Jannie S. J. (November 2013). "The precious metals we prefer to ignore". Minerals Engineering 53: 266–275. doiWikipedia:10.1016/j.mineng.2013.06.021. ISSN 0892-6875. 
  102. David, Marcella (2013). "Trademark Unraveled: The U.S. Olympic Committee Versus Knitters of the World". Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 14 (2): 705. ISSN 1552-9541. 
  103. Hendrickson, Heather; Rainey, Paul B. (September 19, 2012). "How the unicorn got its horn" (in en). Nature 489 (7417): 504–505. doiWikipedia:10.1038/nature11487. ISSN 1476-4687. 
  104. Ramiz, Refet (2020). "New Perspective for the Philosophy of Religion: New Era Theory, Religion and Science". Philosophy Study 10 (12): 818-873. 
  105. Tinnes, Judith (June 2020). "Bibliography: Internet-Driven Right-Wing Terrorism". Perspectives on Terrorism 14 (3): 168–189. ISSN 2334-3745. 
  106. Hassani, Sadri (May 1, 2016). "Commentary: The dangerous growth of pseudophysics" (in en). Physics Today 69 (5): 10–11. doiWikipedia:10.1063/PT.3.3151. ISSN 0031-9228. "In high school or in introductory college physics or chemistry courses, a five-minute weekly (extra-credit) quiz based on a 30- to 45-minute reading assignment can go a long way in making students aware of pseudoscientific nonsense and its danger to society. I suggest the encyclopedic resource [RationalWiki] as a starting point. Such training may not be as urgent as climate change, in which many teachers are admirably engaged. But the consequences of pseudoscience are too menacing to be ignored." 
  107. Heilman, James (August 25, 2015). "Open Access to a High-Quality, Impartial, Point-of-Care Medical Summary Would Save Lives: Why Does It Not Exist?" (in en). PLOS Medicine 12 (8): e1001868. doiWikipedia:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001868. ISSN 1549-1676. 
  108. Fukuda, Chie (May 2023). "Interactional and categorial analyses of identity construction in the talk of female-to-male (FtM) transgender individuals in Japan" (in en). Pragmatics. doiWikipedia:10.1075/prag.20066.fuk. 
  109. White, Ethan Doyle (2017). "Northern Gods for Northern Folk: Racial Identity and Right-wing Ideology among Britain’s Folkish Heathens". Journal of Religion in Europe 10 (3): 241–273. doiWikipedia:10.1163/18748929-01003001. ISSN 1874-8929. 
  110. Walkowiak, S.; Coutrot, A.; Hegarty, M.; Velasco, P. F.; Wiener, J. M.; Dalton, R. C.; Hölscher, C.; Hornberger, M. et al. (2023). "Cultural determinants of the gap between self-estimated navigation ability and wayfinding performance: evidence from 46 countries" (in en). Scientific Reports 13 (1): 10844. doiWikipedia:10.1038/s41598-023-30937-w. ISSN 2045-2322. 
  111. Katz, Jennifer; Tirone, Vanessa (2015). "From the Agency Line to the Picket Line: Neoliberal Ideals, Sexual Realities, and Arguments about Abortion in the U.S." (in en). Sex Roles 73 (7): 311–318. doiWikipedia:10.1007/s11199-015-0475-z. ISSN 1573-2762. 
  112. Henry, P. J.; Wetherell, Geoffrey (2017). "Countries with Greater Gender Equality Have More Positive Attitudes and Laws Concerning Lesbians and Gay Men" (in en). Sex Roles 77 (7): 523–532. doiWikipedia:10.1007/s11199-017-0744-0. ISSN 1573-2762. 
  113. Navin, Mark (April 2013). "Competing Epistemic Spaces: How Social Epistemology Helps Explain and Evaluate Vaccine Denialism". Social Theory and Practice 39 (2): 241–264. ISSN 0037-802X. 
  114. "Special Issue: Innovations in Southern Studies". Southeastern Geographer (University of North Carolina Press) 51 (4). Winter 2011. 
  115. Krabbe, Erik C. W.; van Laar, Jan Albert (June 2019). "In the quagmire of quibbles: a dialectical exploration" (in en). Synthese 198 (4): 3459–3476. doiWikipedia:10.1007/s11229-019-02289-4. ISSN 1573-0964. 
  116. Manni, Franco (January 2020). "Atheistic Scientists and Christian Theologians as Travel Companions" (in en). Theology and Science 18 (1): 46–58. doiWikipedia:10.1080/14746700.2019.1710349. ISSN 1474-6700. 
  117. Cozzani, Franco (March 16, 2015). "Knowledge management 2.0: the proposal for Commipedia". Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy (Emerald Group Publishing) 9 (1): 17–34. doiWikipedia:10.1108/TG-07-2013-0022. ISSN 1750-6166. 
  118. Chan, Esli (2022). "Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence, Hate Speech, and Terrorism: A Risk Assessment on the Rise of the Incel Rebellion in Canada" (in en). Violence Against Women 29 (9): 1687–1718. doiWikipedia:10.1177/10778012221125495. ISSN 1077-8012. 
  119. "Existential Hope and Existential Despair in AI Apocalypticism and Transhumanism" (in en). Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 54 (1): 156–176. February 2019. doiWikipedia:10.1111/zygo.12494. ISSN 0591-2385. 
  120. Ron Paul forums
  121. Comment of Abiotic oil
  122. Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts