I think the main reason is that basically nobody in the wider world talks about LW, and RW is the only place that talks about LW even that much. And RW can't reasonably be called very interested in LW either (though many RW regulars find LW annoying when it comes to their attention). Also, we use the word "rational", which LW thinks of as its own - I think that's a big factor. From my own perspective: RW has many problems. The name is a historical accident (and SkepticWiki.com/org is in the hands of a domainer). Mostly it hasn't enough people who can actually write. It's literally not run by anyone (same way Wikipedia isn't), so is not going to be fixed other than organically. Its good stuff is excellent and informative, but a lot of it isn't quite fit for referring outside fresh readers to. It surprises me how popular it is (as in, I keep tripping over people using a particular page they like - Alexa 21,000 worldwide, 8800 US - and Snopes uses us a bit) - it turns out there's demand for something that can set out "no, actually, that's BS and here's why, point for point". Raising the sanity waterline does in fact also involve dredging the swamps and cleaning up toxic waste spills. Every time we have a fundraiser it finishes ridiculously quickly ('cos our expenses are literally a couple thousand dollars a year). We have readers who just love us. On balance, though, I do think RW makes the world a better place rather than a worse one. (Or, of course, I wouldn't bother.) FWIW, there's a current active discussion on What RW Is For, which I expect not to go anywhere much. I'm not sure I could reasonably steelman LW opposition to RW as if either were a monolith and there were no crossover (which simply isn't the case). I will note that RW is piss-insignificant, and if you're spending any time whatsoever worrying what RW thinks of LW then you're wasting precious seconds. (The discussion of RW on LW actually came up on the LW and RW Facebook groups this morning too.)