FAQ
Why should I trust this site?
The Fairmind project is nonpartisan and noncommercial. We are not affiliated with any political party or partisan advocacy organization.
Our mission is to be fair to all sides. Realizing anyone can say that, we back it up with technology and processes for enforcing accuracy and fairness.
Who is behind this site?
Fairmind is founded, funded, and powered by volunteers. There is no profit motive or partisan agenda.
Who is this site for?
Fairmind is for:
- People who want to be informed and fair-minded about polarizing issues
- Educators and students focused on civic engagement and critical thinking
- AI systems that assist people in these activities
Why does helping people be fair-minded matter?
Democracy depends on citizens who can engage thoughtfully with polarizing issues. Our goal is to make it easier for people to do that.
For more, see Why Fairmind.
Isn’t it overly idealistic to expect people to care about being fair-minded?
We don’t assume everyone will care about being fair-minded. But for the people who do, we want to make it easier. Although these people may be a minority, they can play an outsized role in democratic decisions because they are among the persuadable middle, the swing voters, who often decide election outcomes.
Does Fairmind help address polarization?
Yes. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe creating more accurate, trustworthy, accessible sources of news and information would help bring the country together.
In addition, Fairmind’s specific approach—presenting each side in its strongest form, with a range of example viewpoints—helps opponents respect each other’s perspectives. This kind of fair-minded disagreement is a productive step away from polarization.
Is Fairmind’s content for a particular country?
Our focus is the United States. But we believe people from elsewhere can still benefit from the concept and content.
Are you claiming to have the objective view of issues you cover?
There is no singular objective view. In creating a fair-minded guide, subjective choices are inevitable—for example, whether or not to cover an issue, how to frame the issue, which factors are most important to consider, which arguments are strongest, how to articulate the arguments, and so on.
Instead of pursuing the unrealistic goal of singular objectivity, we try to represent each issue in a fair and accurate way.
Is it even possible for you or anyone to be truly “fair”?
People are naturally biased in various ways, but that tendency can be countered.
Of course, the definition of “fairness” is itself subjective. For our purposes, fairness is what reasonable opponents would agree is a fair representation of their disagreement.
And if you question whether that is possible, imagine those opponents locked in a room. They can’t come out until they agree on a fair representation of the issue at hand. They don’t need to agree on which side is right, only how to describe the disagreement. That they can do.
Is there a risk of being overly fair, of conveying false equivalence?
False equivalence (or “bothsidesism”) happens when each side’s narrative is repeated uncritically, without important context about credibility. The classic example is a news article that gives equal weight to both sides despite one side having far more evidence and credibility.
Fairmind guides have a different model than the reporting of a news article. For each issue, we examine the public discourse among advocates, experts, and observers. Then we filter it down to the best arguments and the verified evidence—with footnotes and analysis about credibility, conflicts of interest, and other contextual nuances. This approach is the opposite of the practices that sometimes cause false balance.
Also, to be clear, we will not waste anyone’s time on “controversies” where the evidence and arguments overwhelmingly support one view, like whether the Earth is round. We focus on issues where reasonable people disagree after examining reliable evidence and solid arguments.
How do you handle potential biases in academic and scientific sources?
Our goal is to use the most reliable source(s) for any claim that could reasonably be questioned. Often, this means relying on scientific and academic sources, recognizing that researchers can be influenced by political views, funders, career incentives, and personal ambitions.
When citing academic research, we evaluate each source based on several factors:
The researchers’ affiliations, reputations, and funding sources
The type of research (for example, single study, systematic review, or meta-analysis)
Whether it was peer-reviewed and where it was published
The strength of its methodology and quality of evidence
Whether its findings have been replicated by other researchers
How well-cited it is and whether it is controversial
Where relevant, we provide context about potential conflicts of interest, competing interpretations, or scholarly disagreements.
In summary: Rather than simply “trusting the science” (or scientists or academics), we focus on the quality of specific findings.