2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

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 PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $1675.86Goal: $10000
Information icon.svg At the chicken coop, we are currently voting on a change to the blocking policy to clarify when offsite behavior such as harassment and brigading can get someone banned from RW. A reminder that you need at least 75 edits and to have had an account for at least 3 months to vote.

Talk:Educate-yourself.org

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Creationism[edit]

Should this be added to the creationist category?

er. Is there any substantial reason to? I can't see how this would be a helpful categorisation for a reader looking up creationists - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"All information posted on this website is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only"-Site disclaimer (by "authors" they could mean the authors who wrote the information presented originally.)

--Jakester499 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Bad sources[edit]

Shouldn this also be in the "Bad Sources" category? A lot of the stuff on the website is... To say the very least, outlandish. I mean just look at this crankerry--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is something that actually warrants it, yes - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)