RationalWiki is a satirical, half-serious website with a clear secular, liberal slant. A lot of the articles therein are biased and censorious, especially those dealing with religion or the opposing party. Having said that, the site is admittedly more credible than its egregious theoconservative counterpart, Conservapedia. Whereas the latter is serious and self-righteous in its delusions, it seems like this site at least understands that it is reporting along partisan lines.
Naturally, I'd recommend Wikipedia for credible information on any and all topics. RationalWiki caters to a particular point of view, and its credibility is dubious at best. Remember that this wiki is MEANT to be biased, so don't go in expecting a neutral reporting of events.
This website is a wiki-based website about topics pertaining to religion, politics, and science. It is written from an atheistic, liberal point of view; this means that the way one takes this website depends heavily on their views.
As with any website that talks about hot-buttoned topics, this website is not always child friendly.
This is the most negative, condescending, and blatantly biased website I have ever visited. The authors are openly racist, sexist, and prejudiced against all people groups, religions, and traditions. It is a very disappointing read if you have an even remotely open mind. Have any of the authors heard of giving others the benefit of the doubt? According to these authors, everyone who doesn't hold a perfectly cynical, leftist, and atheistic view of the world is an idiot, and anyone who is white or religious is evil. I can only imagine the number of Facebook friends who have blocked these angry atheists from their feed. Do yourself a favor and avoid this site's toxic negativity.
Included below is just one example of many from the site of blatant racism, sexism, and prejudice, via a web archive, lest the authors attempt to delete it.
"basically anyone who can't afford seven-figure bribes or isn't white, male, and psychotically religious."
"Today, the Democratic Party attracts academia, white-collar professionals, scientists, medical students, the youth vote, the working class, increasingly the middle class, consumer advocates, copyright reformers, women, LGBT, ethnic minorities, basically anyone who can't afford seven-figure bribes or isn't white, male, and psychotically religious. Considering the very nature of the Republican Party, this is not that surprising, and the Democrats don't really need to do much to court their vote."
The website is safe of viruses, malware, and is kid friendly. The website has some extremely pseudo-liberal bias, and this is coming from a liberal, and misrepresents multiple people. If you want a good wiki for school and such, go to the normal Wikipedia. I would not use this wiki, it's as biased as the Conservapedia, yet is rated well for some reason.
Reasonable and cited, but has a snarky liberal bias. Nothing is extremely deceptive, but it doesn't hide humor targetting conservatives. Examples:
-Under the creation category, it contains articles listed as "The best of" in a funny sense, usually about highly uneducated claims by those selling pseudoscience. Biased, but not misleading.
-On the article "Barack Obama," there are words crossed out that were typically labeled on the president by some conseratives; an example of this being his accused birthplace of Kenya. It also ends the first paragraph with a massive contradictory list of all the accusations far-right conservatives have accused him of, including martian (which the actual theory is cited)
-On the page for Jonah Goldberg, the reference his book "Liberal Fascism" as a "brain fart"
This differs from its far-right sister encyclopedia Conservapedia in that it is openly humorous, as well as being significantly less deceptive. It doesn't portray itself as factual, rather being a humorous slant on everything.
Contains a lot of highly opinionated, controversial, fallacious, biased, one-sided articles that have nothing to do with rationalism but are presented as rational - examples of those might be stances on social justice, libertarianism, authoritarianism, Objectivism, cryonics and several psychoanalysts - and even supposedly rational articles, such as their stance on global warming and dogma, are usually extremely biased, fallacious, opinionated and poorly cited. Unfortunately, you cannot proclaim yourself as a rationalist and assume that this makes all your opinions rational and objective, and this is where RationalWiki falls short. Sometimes it could be a somewhat good source of information for as long as you're looking for rational view on pseudoscience, logic, conspiracy and so forth, but generally, there are much better sources of rational information, such as Wikipedia and Scholarpedia, and it is definitely pointless to dig through beachside algae in hopes of finding precious metals.
I do not agree with all the views presented on this site, but I believe people need to hear both point and couterpoint to make an informed decision. I would not consider this site an authority for research. (I wouldn't consider wikipedia an authority either as it is subject to the last edit of anyone with an account.)
The subjects addressed offer a counterpoint argument to those provided and on evangelical christian sites (loosely termed concservative) websites about social issues. Therefore, this site is useful in understanding the viewpoint of a subset of the American political spectrum, radical left activists.
It should be viewed on a par with sites such as conservapedia.org, move.org, ffrf.org, slate.com, humanevents.com or any other politically motivated sites.
I label the the child safety as be cautious as I believe these are issues best addressed with parental guidance.
I label this as suspicious as it provides opinions based on emotional sometimes ad hominem manner rather than providing factual information.
The entry "wingnut" for example, uses derogatory language one might find in a grade school child's attempt to defame another. The author makes no attempt to hide this nor to indicate this is political satire. There are no references given to support the author's viewpoint.
Unllike Wikipedia, this website does not maintain a neutral tone or require reliable sources for its statements of fact, Though they are often on the right side of issues i agree with it, there is a snide and sloppy attitude towards handling dissent or opposing opinions. The editorial opinion seems to be that opposing views or contradictory facts are from idiots and bigots so they don't need to be taken seriously.
It is a lot like an ideologically liberal conservapedia. The facts must fit the conclusions. Even when they are correct, they are a waste of time. Pity that, they could have been so much more.