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 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Hey there, I'm ikanreed, an editor and an ass. All of Immanuel Kant's weird hangups, none of his Christianity.
I like to pretend I'm capable and willing to be rational, but don't pretend I'm automatically rational because I think I'm right. I do not to buy into religion, woo, or conspiracy theories, even if the the bike lobby is an all powerful enterprise.
I'll do my best to get any issues you have resolved. My draft space is where articles go to die.
As to my edits
I mostly stick to talk pages, occasional reference beefing, and small changes.
If I'm particularly acrimonious and unfair to you
this is probably why. Not an excuse, but a good explanation.
Fuck it, genuine shitheads abound. Probably entirely due. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Reading the actual papers isn't that hard
Hey everyone, news headlines frequently give inaccurate or insufficiently restrained summaries of scientific studies. Please, violate copyright law, head over to sci-hub, paste in the DOI of the original article, and read the methodology section. Every time someone reads the methodology section, an angel gets its wings.
- The Wall Street Journal(no really)