Quackwatch

Quackwatch
Typewebsite
StatusNo consensus No consensus
Deprecatedno
Blacklistedno
Recency2020
Domain quackwatch.org
In source code

External links in articles

Spamcheck tool
RfC
LinkRfc
Date2019


Summary

Articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a subject-matter expert) and self-published (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.

Excerpt

Quackwatch is a United States-based website focused on promoting consumer protection and providing information about health related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. It primarily targets alternative medicine, questionable health claims, and practices it considers pseudoscience. It was founded in 1996 by Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist and former co-chair of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Initially operated under the nonprofit Quackwatch, Inc., it became part of the Center for Inquiry (CFI) in 2020. Its content is now maintained by CFI's Office of Consumer Protection and Pseudoscience.

Discussions


Recency

Stale discussions 2020

Rfcs

  1. 2019 Rfc

Notes

References

    Original table row for comparison

    (remove this when this source page is ready to go live)

    Perennial sources
    Source Status
    (legend)    		 Discussions Use
    List Last Summary
    Quackwatch No consensus Request for comment 2019 Stale discussions

    2020

    		 Articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a subject-matter expert) and self-published (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. 1 Links Spamcheck