May I quite sincerely suggest that you take another look at RationalWiki? In the last few days I have done that. I used to have a favorable impression of it (perhaps based on ignorance?). But I think that, at least nowadays, it's not a terribly serious source -- a lot of polemicism and ideological edits, and its statement of purpose is explicit that it wants to have "snark" to make the articles "less boring". I think we might be debating something which is more the domain of teenagers when I suspect we're both at least in our 30s.
The upside is that snark doesn't change anything as long as the remarks are sourced and verifiable. Neither does the volunteers age.
They might be snarky about someone eating babies, but as long as you can verify whether the person ate a baby, you can just either agree or not agree that baby-eating is bad.
