Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not RationalWiki

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts WP:RATIONAL WP:RATIONALWIKI

This page in a nutshell: We are refute pseudoscience .

Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia fortunately has its own answer to the demarcation problem. Pseudoscience is nonsense claiming to be scientific,^[3] or theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus,^[4] or theories presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods.^[5] Pseudoscience is not a synonym for false, or even for unscientific.^[6]

Relevant policies

Relevant essays

• Wikipedia:Systemic bias
  • There is a vast body of critical and decolonial scholarship that offers much broader perspectives than those that are presently available on Wikipedia. These peer-reviewed studies provide reliable sources that are relatively easy to incorporate into the encyclopedia and have enormous potential for countering systemic bias.
• Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
  • While mainstream subjects are based on numerous excellent sources and tend to receive favorable treatment here, there are editors whose legitimate skepticism towards fringe subjects tends to make them deal improperly with the subjects, even to the point of censoring and deleting them.

Other opinions

• User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.
• User:Apaugasma/No. We are not biased.
• Wikipedia:Why Santa Is Important
  • Thinking that Wikipedia is RationalWiki is only one step away from comparing stories about Santa Claus to holocaust denial.^[7]