RationalWiki is a liberal alternative to Conservapedia. Liberal atheists will find there a lot of ammunition for fighting online battles. Other people may get the impression that the wiki comes with its own set of biases.

Generally, the wiki tries to promote science and oppose pseudoscience, and often does a good job. The problem is with politically charged topics, where politically correct ideas are automatically presented as science, and politically incorrect ideas as pseudoscience.

Unlike Wikipedia, the idea of impartiality is considered a joke at RationalWiki. As soon as you decide that an idea is pseudoscientific, you are allowed and actually encouraged to use the "snarky point of view", which provides an excuse for exaggerations or straw men, because if anyone objects, hey, I was just joking, don't you understand a joke? Of course the articles do not distinguish the factual and the snarky parts, so everyone is free to make their own guess.

I think she is tangential to some completely unobjectionable stuff as well as some (to me) objectionable stuff. The things she talks about the most which I find interesting are the internal-to-Europe differences in family patterns (family size, manorialism, adoption, etc.) and how those have changed population genetics within europe over time (culture impacting genetics; unclear the extent genetics impact culture). Also that in England and other NW Europe the most violent people were executed for crimes fairly aggressively, and only elites had large numbers of children, leading to a long-term improvement in genetics with time.

If this is true and significant then it does not imply a long-term improvement so much as a specialisation towards (a) not being caught for crimes and (b) being able to become an “elite,” potentially by violence, cruelty, manipulation, and other traits one likely would not consider desirable.

On crimes I disagree, because committing violent crimes and being caught for them tend to be fairly correlated; crime is rarely a one-time thing, and criminals get unlucky or are stupid too.

As for elites -> more children, since there were various routes into "elite" for smart/competent/etc. people (the church in various roles, not all of which precluded reproduction; skilled trades/guilds, etc.), it did have a positive effect in amplifying traits (intelligence, etc.) which I think people broadly support (I do). Similar to the assortative mating issues with colleges and elite workplaces today.

Her “about” on her blog confirms all this. Specifically when she speaks about race.

Foremost I'd like to excuse myself for my laziness as I'm more engaged by the presumption of words like "racist" being thrown at the innocent and less by reading up individual political leanings - but could you please name some examples that prove what "rationalWiki" says, that she's a racist. Quoting Charles Murray often shouldn't count. And I didn't found an "about" page, just this: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/my-politics/

I keep looking but i cannot find this confirmation. Would you mind posting a link?