Well, while it could be that each are somehow equally biased and that each makes the same mistakes to the same degree, just in opposite directions; it's also possible that one is simply more accurate in describing reality than the other. That's precisely the problem with RationalWiki, it declares itself and its view "rational", which is a divisive and almost delusional level of bias called naive realism, a sort of bias that borders on zealotry. While compromise can be important, the mean or average of two views is not necessarily the truth. More importantly is self-awareness, or understanding that you're not operating on a high enough tier of information or conclusive understanding of it to become enchanted with your own perspective and start taking everything a pirori. This is reflected in an essential programming of advanced non-axiomatic reasoning systems: “Work under the assumption of insufficient knowledge and resources.” This is programmed to avoid things like the Dunning-Kruger Effect, naive realism, and other very volatile and regressive reasoning. Interesting that "Rational"Wiki and the "skeptic" movement has very little concern for these things. Like any esoteric sectarian truth movement, they turn their aggression outwards. The "rational" movement attacks everybody else's real or imagined irrationality, not unlike the church targets the sinner, heathen, and heretic--both aloof to their own internal corruption which can border on absolute, due to the assumption that they've mastered the desired object (reason, holiness, etc.). To make an example, a wiki on the shape of the earth that includes dissent from flat-earthers might seem superior to one that did not; after all, it includes more points of view. But the earth-shape wiki that just talks about the spheriod shape would be more accurate and superior, because it is actually correct in that regard. More and different information can be better, but it is possible to overdo it in that regard. Flat earthers are a great example! Rather than trying to understand them and draw some insight on them, the self, and peripheral things, RationalWiki just circlejerks about how smart it is: "The flat earth theory can be falsified on any clear night an hour or two after sunset by observing satellites in the sky, provided that one accepts either Occam's razor or common sense as valid stances. Plus sanity. Unless governments around the world are launching one-shot satellites every night to maintain the conspiracy, a flat earth simply won't support a constellation of orbiting objects." "Simply" regarding very nuanced information about orbits that folks don't actually understand a priori just by looking at the night's sky..? They consider the information so obvious that you're "insane" if you think otherwise. Is it true that sanely looking at the moon will cause you to understand the Earth isn't flat..? RationalWiki is incorrect, and even calls the idea of a spherical Earth simple by invoking Occam's razor when, in reality, a flat Earth is the more obvious choice from a terrestrial perspective. RationalWiki is being [self-]deceptive--it's using a truth to support chaotic and anti-informational assumptions about things. Interestingly the flat-earthers make a good point. Not regarding the shape of the planet, but the nature of information. Many of the flat-earthers' views are perfectly plausible if you accept their premises, which aren't many or unthinkable (e.g. the government can lie), and the flat Earth is actually more accessible than a spherical earth (it's easier to see or sense that the earth is flat, from the ground). I remember the astrophysicists at Sixty Symbols admiring the flat earthers for this and for their creativity, because the solid reasoning and use of mathematics that technically "worked" in their explanations illustrated an actual issue in science. The issue being that not having access to or [knowing to] accept all the facts can lead to radically different explanations for phenomena that are factually wrong (like the flat earth)--while the explanations themselves (day/night cycles and seasons on the flat earth) would actually work if the premise was right. The example I remember Sixty Symbols giving was Newton vs. Einstein, in which Newton had many explanations and much math worked out for physics--processes which were demonstrably true. That is, until Einstein came along and factored in light speed and revealed relativity, demonstrating that Newton's premise was wrong (like the flat earth) but his support was right (like how day/night would work on it) on the limited information (sublight theories). It was the incoming facts that rendered Newton false, but otherwise Newton could prove he was right on the micro. I remember Sixty Symbols mentioning that current theories on Quantum Physics and aspects of astrophysics will very likely be subject to this phenomenon that Newton experienced. There are several explanations and theories for bizarre particle phenomena today, and it's expected that we'll find them wrong as we gain more information, like it was with Newton. This is why Hawking was chasing the "theory of everything". In astrophysics, renormalization and paradoxes are evidence of these "Newtonian Holes" in knowledge leading to incorrect conclusions that "worked". The underlying idea being that reason alone just isn't enough and one must always continue experimenting and pushing and testing even accepted truths and finding them false in the bigger picture. In other words, all of science is "flat earthing" and looking for more data so as to update and take one small step back and see more. It must always do this. RationalWiki and "skeptics" don't know this because they're not professionally involved with knowledge or exploration, just bandwagoning with pop culture. Therefore I would agree with OP that RationalWiki and self-declared "skeptic" movements are divisive and anti-informational in this way.