2

RationalWiki is a wikimedia platform based website which claimed purpose is (see its mainpage):

  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

All of this sounds great. However, while reading some of RationalWiki articles, I noted a quite strong political bias, which is often somehow masked as irony. (I prefer to not give explicit examples, because I am afraid that the discuss would quickly turn political and goes off-topic.)

I looked for some criticisms of RationalWiki, but I have found very few of them, and their all seemed very bias by their own.

My questions are:

(A). Under which metrics can RationalWiki be considered a reliable, unbiased, and scientific/rational driven source of material? And under which metrics, it can not?

(B). Are there some good analysis/criticism of RationalWiki?

EDIT: The question has been put on hold as "primarily opinion-based" but I suggest to give it a second thought. As in my reply to OddThinking's comment, there are many objective indicators of reliability. Let say for example that my question was about Conservapedia instead of RationalWiki: I can image several possible answers showing by facts, not opinions, that the former is not a reliable source.

  • 5
    Welcome to Skeptics! There isn't a specific measure we could use to determine whether a Wiki has a bias, and if there was, there is no claim that it is unbiased in that way. – Oddthinking Sep 10 '17 at 12:18
  • 9
    Most of Rationalwiki's "political bias" accusations tend to stem from Conservapaedia's adherents, who tend to take personal offense when RW calls them out on unscientific claims and statements. – Shadur Sep 10 '17 at 13:03
  • 3
    @Oddthinking I think that there are many "measures" to understand if something is a "reliable, unbiased, and scientific/rational driven source", e.g.: Does it contain scientific-correct information? What are its sources? Is it peer-review? Do the majority of the experts agree? ... Of course, none of these "measures" give absolute guarantees, but I wouldn't call them opinion-based. To make it clear: Would you say that a book on medicine which have been written by non-experts, which didn't pass a peer-review process, and contains many incorrect basic claims is a "reliable,unbiased ecc. source"? – Tzason Sep 10 '17 at 14:42
  • 5
    Asking about specific metrics won't help this question. Skeptics.SE is about providing citations for notable claims. Questions here should be of the form, such-and-such notably (with a broad audience) said something. Is that true? Both before and now, this has no notable claim. So even if it's no longer opinion-based, it's still off-topic. – Brythan Sep 10 '17 at 17:40
  • 3
    @Oddthinking The question about Conservapedia would be answerable---by showing that it's not. – Loren Pechtel Sep 11 '17 at 4:08

Browse other questions tagged .