These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
- Overall, we rate RationalWiki Left-Center biased based on 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.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180
Founded in April 2007 by Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, RationalWiki Analyzes and refutes 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.
From a historical perspective, RationalWiki was created as a response to Conservapedia, which is routinely critical of liberals and atheists. MBFC lists Conservapedia as a Questionable source based on the publication of right wing Christian Propaganda, as well as false reports.
Funded by / Ownership
RationalWiki is owned by the RationalMedia Foundation and is funded through donations.
Analysis / Bias
In review, RationalWiki is a wiki site that is open source and editable by anyone. RationalWiki is different from Wikipedia in that they openly use loaded language to describe conservatives and those who promote conspiracies and pseudoscience. In general, RationalWiki does not attempt to hide there bias as they routinely poke fun at conservatives. This has led to them being labeled leftists. Perhaps RationalWiki leans left, but in the end they are a pro-Science source. In general, all information is sourced to credible sources of evidence, much like Wikipedia.
A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check.
Overall, we rate RationalWiki Left-Center biased based on 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. (D. Van Zandt 8/19/2016) Updated (5/29/2019)