If you look at the RationalWiki page, I don’t think it helps people seeing LW as legit.
Do you mean the RationalWiki page about LessWrong, or the Wikipedia page about RationalWiki?
If you mean the former: RationalWiki pages don’t carry the same legitimacy as Wikipedia pages, so I don’t see this as strong evidence.
If you mean the latter: there’s no Wikipedia page about RationalWiki (the RationalWiki page redirects to Conservapedia).
The RationalWiki page on Lesswrong does illustrate the kind of things you can say about LW by quoting media.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Do you mean the RationalWiki page about LessWrong, or the Wikipedia page about RationalWiki?
If you mean the former: RationalWiki pages don’t carry the same legitimacy as Wikipedia pages, so I don’t see this as strong evidence.
If you mean the latter: there’s no Wikipedia page about RationalWiki (the RationalWiki page redirects to Conservapedia).
The RationalWiki page on Lesswrong does illustrate the kind of things you can say about LW by quoting media.