The Wikipedia page itself will help portray LessWrong as “legit” and also provide information to people that’ll help them decide if the site is suitable for them.
I don’t really buy that. There are plenty of organisations that have Wikipedia articles that aren’t legit. If you look at the RationalWiki page, I don’t think it helps people seeing LW as legit.
As far as making the decision whether an webforum is suitable for someone, that decision is usually made by reading the webforum and seeing whether it’s content interests you enough to stick around.
I don’t really buy that. There are plenty of organisations that have Wikipedia articles that aren’t legit. If you look at the RationalWiki page, I don’t think it helps people seeing LW as legit.
As far as making the decision whether an webforum is suitable for someone, that decision is usually made by reading the webforum and seeing whether it’s content interests you enough to stick around.
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.