>>323710>>323711>RationalwikiSorry me engrish.
Rationalwiki its a interesting place to learn about people or critics, media and bad thing about people or things they did or keep doing or thing around institutions.
They have a lot of info and links about religions and academical things around christianity, islam and other religions, cults, new age, gurues, frauds, science terms etc. This is their pure brute force and to me is more focused than wikipedia bacause they keep to cite and do a good reference to these things so you can get it or learn more.
There's more about science things and some specific jargon or methods that assholes and religious cultist and frauds use a lot.
Its like a edramatica roast people and troll but trying to be more gentle and serious at times so you can learn and dont just laugh.
Edramatica took damn serious with scientology and anonymous, its in the same way for a lot of articles of rationalwiki.
This is their more good part in my opinion.
>The problemThe problem with the site sometimes is the political fights between ideologies or ideas of users, this end in no-end debates in forum about articles like a Too liberal Feminist Commies with their herarchies of how think between them of things vs with rightist-endangered Atheist and common middle science people trying to do good articles without political dogma in it.
You can see this when happened the thing about gamergate and anita sarkesian (Edramatica is more good to give info about lolcows and "Angelic perfect people" with bitch-attention-whore behaviour), or when trump and Qgate articles start to made up, or when there's low biased articles about radical feminist behaviour or trans-attention-whores (the assholes of trans people) or the first manosphere articles and crab biased articles (they fixed these later with no bias to me, crab and crabdol and pills and mgtow have much difference in behaviour)
There're several articles about peoples or political ideas bacause of this, they know that is hard to make an article without good or bad BS so this end in two or three articles about same person or thing or idea or topic but made by another user with another perspective, info, ideology and with a fight in the forum about if the article of "Commiebritney" or "crabdombrandon" are not biased or good if have good references.
They try to keep in general these biased articles even if offend the commiebritney or crabdombrandon.
As example, there's articles about Libertarian ideas in good philosohical sense and there's articles just roasting it in a more marxist-lenist leftist or wathever around thinkers and etc.
Its the same for roast leftist articles and some are made by post-left and libertarians lol.
In general the good sense people check links and sites and know about the bias around the topic if is religious, political etc.
But maybe there're some out of place articles in another language or country origin, some are more good than english ones. Others are a shit totally biased using just one media info, like one about a presidency or goverment (like just using leftist new channels as info) there was an old article about Javier Milei using a fake new source by leftist as example. But that happened bacause its a total new thing to do an article about a new dude anyone know and they just grab leftist fake new sites to damage the image (and yep, still the dude later managed to say a lot of bizarre things maybe that are not fake lol)
Its kinda hard to tell the english dudes these links can be fake or made up bacause they still see you with bias and you need account and some level inside forum etc.
Identity politics are a shit.
The other problem is broken links but at this is like edramatica.