People on RW don't seem to grasp the concept of reliable sources as used on Wikipedia. As bad as Wikipedia culture is, stuff that is well sourced will usually survive an edit war, and the stuff that remains in a controversial Wikipedia article is usually very well sourced.
Even if you don't agree with the ultimate consensus, the surviving sources are generally top notch and you can evaluate them for yourself if you find the article(s) on a subject not to your liking. For example, anything related to Israel or Palestine. These articles have been the subject of scorched earth fighting by everyone on the planet with an interest in the subject, including the actual JIDF itself.
The articles themselves are actually pretty damn good considering this, and again, don't like them? Check the secondary sources, and the primary sources those sources cite.
To an extraordinary extent, by comparison, RationalWiki will basically nuke sources for no reason other than that they say things that don't fit into the ultra-SJW worldview that rules the whole site. This is exactly what the problem with Conservapedia is. They don't give a shit how solid the source is, but if the opinion is in line with theirs, personal blogs and all kinds of utter horseshit get cited in articles all the time.
Real rationalists who are interested in combating irrational nonsense online are way more likely to edit the actual Wikipedia itself than retreat to a goofy little hugbox where only their approved sources are allowed.
types, not necessarily an SJW hive.
