3 ms·

I don't know how to substantiate this, so I won't try. My impression of the site is that it has a particular left-wing/pro-socialist political bias that creeps

I don't know how to substantiate this, so I won't try. My impression of the site is that it has a particular left-wing/pro-socialist political bias that creeps into articles, particularly about individuals. It doesn't usually have false information, but the language is often quite unfair. It's not wrong to have an opinion of course, but I assume it's opinions are an emergent property of its users and not the result of unapologetic rationality. This websites opinion aligns pretty closely with my impression: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/

pcwalton 4y ago
RationalWiki was created in opposition to Conservapedia, so it's not unsurprising that it would attract users of the opposite political persuasion to the latter site. The comparison to Encyclopedia Dramatica, a dead wiki that in its heyday was populated by edgy teenage trolls, is silly though.
- hatefulmoron 4y ago
  I was just answering why I don't take it too seriously as an impartial source, I agree it's not as bad as Encyclopedia Dramatica. With that said, if you look at a page like this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard , it's very similar to an ED page minus all the outlandish racism.
  - jeffrey44 4y ago
    [dead]
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> Overall, we rate RationalWiki Left-Center biased based on the use of loaded language against conservatives and High for factual reporting due to pro-science reporting coupled with proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. Vs https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/encyclopedia-dramatica/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/encyclopedia-dramatica/ > SATIRE > These sources exclusively use humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Primarily these sources are clear that they are satire and do not attempt to deceive. See all Satire sources. > Update: This source is no longer online.
- hatefulmoron 4y ago
  Yes, I wasn't trying to say they're the same, just commenting on RationalWiki by itself. I suppose that wasn't clear.

pcwalton 4y ago

RationalWiki was created in opposition to Conservapedia, so it's not unsurprising that it would attract users of the opposite political persuasion to the latter site. The comparison to Encyclopedia Dramatica, a dead wiki that in its heyday was populated by edgy teenage trolls, is silly though.

hatefulmoron 4y ago
I was just answering why I don't take it too seriously as an impartial source, I agree it's not as bad as Encyclopedia Dramatica. With that said, if you look at a page like this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard , it's very similar to an ED page minus all the outlandish racism.
- jeffrey44 4y ago
  [dead]

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> Overall, we rate RationalWiki Left-Center biased based on the use of loaded language against conservatives and High for factual reporting due to pro-science reporting coupled with proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. Vs https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/encyclopedia-dramatica/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/encyclopedia-dramatica/ > SATIRE > These sources exclusively use humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Primarily these sources are clear that they are satire and do not attempt to deceive. See all Satire sources. > Update: This source is no longer online.

hatefulmoron 4y ago
Yes, I wasn't trying to say they're the same, just commenting on RationalWiki by itself. I suppose that wasn't clear.