Media Bias Fact Check

Interesting point. I think the challenge for any platform like Media Bias Fact Check is that 'objectivity' itself is often viewed through the observer's own lens. Using RationalWiki might be controversial for some, but the key is whether their underlying data methodology (like looking at ownership, sourcing, and correction frequency) holds up.

For me, as someone who builds data-driven utilities, I always tell users to cross-reference multiple fact-checking sources rather than relying on one single authority. It's about building a 'triangulation' of truth. Do you find other alternatives that use a more transparent scoring system?

Honestly Newsguard is way better than MBFC, even though they still have quite a bit of bias similar to MBFC. Unfortunately Newsguard no longer has a free tier. I only use MBFC for their list of outlets. MBFC methodology is opaque in terms of scoring and relies entirely on the author's perspective and views. The information that they present to give their scoring of the outlets are also equally very shallow and lacking in detail and proper sourcing, especially when if you've read a review from Newsguard about the outlet.

Quoting RationalWiki in my view is like quoting the CreationismWiki. Both are low in facts and extremely high in opinion. The moment I see that a site uses it as a factual source and rated it as High factually, is when I can disregard most if not all of the claims /arguments that they make. At this point the basic Wikipedia would have been a more reliable and trustworthy source, despite their issues.

I only use MBFC for their lists of outlets, and make factual judgements on my own with my own reasoning and research, Newsguard used to help with that for me until very recently.