Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Sources

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (Wikipedia)

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

This is Wikipedia's article on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the organization founded to investigate and critically evaluate paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, maintained by the community editing process Wikipedia uses for all its articles rather than by a fixed editorial board. Its strength is that Wikipedia articles on established organizations are continuously checked and corrected by many editors and tend to be reliable for standard, uncontroversial facts, founding dates, leadership, publications and organizational history. Its limit is structural rather than specific to this article: it is a perpetually community-edited reference rather than a peer-reviewed scholarly publication, so it is the right source for biographical and organizational detail about the Committee but not for a contested or specialist claim about a specific paranormal investigation the Committee has conducted, which needs the Committee's own published findings or independent reporting instead.

Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier
3
A Wikipedia reference article on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, cited only for basic checkable organizational facts (Paul Kurtz's founding of CSICOP, renaming, ongoing work, the investigation-versus-advocacy tension named in the article itself). The tier-3 use, not independent evidence for any specific investigation's conclusion.
Notes
Wikipedia's article on Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. A perpetually community-edited reference page rather than a peer-reviewed publication; use for standard, uncontroversial facts about Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (biographical detail, dates, common definitions), not as the source for a contested or specialist scholarly claim.
Citation
Author
Wikipedia contributors
Publisher
Wikipedia
URL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry
Source Type
reference
Claims Backed By This Source (16 claims)

This source backs 16 claims across the atlas. As facts: 14 well-attested. As cited relationships: 1 holds. Plus 1 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.

Disposition By Topic

  • Sources, 7 claims: 7 well-attested.
  • Organizations, 6 claims: 4 well-attested, 1 holds, 1 general references.
  • Articles, 3 claims: 3 well-attested.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.