I don't know anything about them but I would ignore it. This wiki seem extremely fringe and comes across as far right winged.
There's nothing wrong with science but they use scientific evidence to dismiss other types of evidence and claim that scientific evidence is the only evidence we should believe. Dismissing the fact that it is very easy to skew science to fit ones agenda.
Yeah, it's cherry-picked, sure. But, and I'm not ideological about this...that page and that site are not right-wing, I assure you. I disagree with
@Chriswolf in the sense that I wouldn't use a link from libertarian/Austrian econ sites to make my point, but that's his opinion which is fine & in my view not worth discussing further--but that's because I'm not interested in political discussion here. However, yeah, Rationalwiki is absolutely left-wing.
The scorn directed at "CFS" is nonpartisan: the right wing view is that we're a bunch of lazy slackers who just need a good kick in the ass, while the left-wing view is that we're a bunch of hypochondriacs who are the very reason single-payer healthcare systems struggle, being that we consume substantial resources without contributing much of anything. We don't get better, we go to the doctor a lot, we're resistant to treatment options, so the only thing that makes sense is for those who can manage our wastebasket to deal with us...and that's psychiatrists, CBT, & GET. Both views are wrong to the point of being vile, but people tend to project their own biases, especially in times as intense as the past couple of years. Which is to say, more than at any time in recent memory. So I've seen patients I know to be conservative savage the Affordable Care Act (which I'm no fan of) while not taking into account anything that was positive about it, while I've seen those on the Left talk about how single-payer is what we really need, in spite of the rather obvious straits ME patients find themselves in in countries with...single-payer health care.
I wouldn't agree that no-one reads RationalWiki, but I suppose it is best left alone, I've thought of joining that page to edit it but I don't really have the strength to fight with those people. Someone did make some adjustments a year and a half ago when David Tuller started writing about PACE and James Coyne got involved. Take a look at the history of the page, it was far worse after it had first appeared, as it said absolutely nothing about what CFS is, and had solely to do with the constant horrors imposed on esteemed researchers like Simon Wessely by lunatic patients. It read like something you'd see on Bad Science (which itself is populated by people who are either lesser-known disciples of what we call the Wessely School, or are colleagues of people who are a part of it), and the longer they have a page that bad up, the more it reflects on them. At some point I expect they'll have to change it. It's an embarrassment, a sham, and living proof what scientists and especially 'skeptics' think of us. And when people demand proof of how we're mistreated or thought of poorly, pages like that are pretty good evidence. But the political bent of that bunch is simply not right-wing. Read the page on that site about Donald Trump, and then the page on Hillary Clinton. Those and the CFS article are all consistent in their political leanings.