RationalWiki's 2019 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.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3220Goal: $6000


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


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)