The thing is that Wikipedia, as a whole, is fairly decent. If ever I want to know about what movie a particular actor or actress was in, how many top 10 hits a singer has had, or any particular show business-related facts, it is very accurate and very informative. For purely factual things, about what a particular thing I am eating really is like, it is generally pretty accurate. It does slip up from time to time, but they try their best, and they do improve over time. The big problem with Wikipedia are with their controversial topics. Controversial topics occasionally are occasionally about whether or not a particular singer or actor is gay, but, thanks to the Biographies of Living Persons rule, that isn't all that big an issue anymore. Sometimes someone can pretend that something isn't true simply by claiming it is confidential, and they can even get a secret about someone they like suppressed, even when it is out there in the mass media and is very relevant. But none of that is a real problem. The real problem are on historical issues. Take, well, any world leader. Or any past world leader. Or any political party. Any historical event. Heck, anything that matters at all. Wikipedia will present the "clean" view of it. There will not be any controversy involved whatsoever. Not only that, but anything that even slightly disagrees with the point of view of the relevant government will not be listed at all. If it is, it is listed in a weasly inaccurate way where they pretend it is a conspiracy theory, even when it is something that is accepted as fact in the entire world. They don't just do this on one or two isolated things either: they do it for everything. On several occasions that I personally know about they actually succeeded in changing history, thanks to Google using Wikipedia as a major search engine hit. Deliberately false information was presented in Wikipedia, which changed what Google displayed, then Wikipedia was used as later news sources about historical incidents, and, hey presto, they have changed history. Much more successful than book burning. And here is where Rational Wiki comes in. You see, Rational Wiki starts off under the absurd pretext that Wikipedia supports "conspiracy theories", rather than the truth, which is that Wikipedia opposes anything even remotely against what the official story is. So Rational Wiki will have some of the most brainwashed absurd stories with weasel words galore, even saying things like "only crackpots believe this" and "there is no actual evidence of this" and so forth. Even when there are official government documents proving that their so-called conspiracy theory isn't even a theory, it is fact. The bottom line is that Rational Wiki serves no purpose other than to stroke the egos of the egomaniacs who are writing for it. It is not constructive. It doesn't educate. And it most certainly isn't scientific. It isn't even effective as a cover up machine. Nobody takes it seriously. Google unfortunately has it up to the top of hits every so often, but it really shouldn't be. The title of their wiki, "Rational Wiki", is a misnomor. It is less accurate than Uncyclopedia, which is where most of its editors originate from. So don't worry if they write about you in a bad way. Nobody cares, and nor should you. The less attention we give to this absurd effort the better.