RationalWiki is a wikimedia platform based website which claimed purpose is (see its mainpage):
- Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
- Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
- Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
- 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.