[Notwithstanding]

If 100 people sign up and begin editing, we might be able to balance the content of Wikipedia. As is typical, consensus is supposedly the hallmark of wikipedia, but PC reigns and we will have to work together to be effective.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Yeah, that will make the whole world think that conservatives are complete idiots.

Geez, leave Wikipedia alone, unless you want everyone to think that conservatives are the stereotypical extremists who would do something like this.

[Dr.Deth]

Hmm, a Freep to pwn pages that are teh suck. Could work.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

With respect NWS, I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. Those misguided few who take Wikipedia seriously are in grave need of long term counseling.

If you want to know what the left wing thinks, sure it's a decent stop on your rounds from DU to KOS and then the DNC website, but honest "neutral" information it is not and will never be.

If I were out for a pissing contest, I might consider following your suggestion, but in the end it's not going to change a single thing. Even if the high level editors left your changes in place, an idea that is frankly laughable given their obvious slant, all it would take is someone who disagrees with your edits to come along and do exactly what you suggest doing. Then you're back to square one.

There's no point in cursing the pigs when you've crawled into the hog lot. They aren't going to stop being pigs and you'll just come away soiled.

[Pablo64]

I can't see how this would be worth anyones time. I've been surfing the net for almost ten years and this is the first I've ever heard of this site. It can't be all that important, and it has about the dumbest name I've ever heard, sounds like an encyclopedia for witches or something (maybe it is). Seems like giving it more attention than it deserves if we all run over there and start trying to fix things. Don't most sites track their number of visits each day as a way of determining popularity? If they suddenly start getting more visits, won't that just increase the chances of people finding out about them? Maybe we should just let them continue to inbreed and die a slow, painful death.

Just my 6 cents worth (2 cents, adjusted for inflation).

[Junior]

Wikipedia is a liberal "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit.

Oxymoron alert. If anyone can edit it, then it is not necessarily "liberal."

[dljordan]

"If 100 people sign up and begin editing, we might be able to balance the content of Wikipedia. As is typical, consensus is supposedly the hallmark of wikipedia, but PC reigns and we will have to work together to be effective."

That wouldn't be very ethical or honorable would it?

[wideminded]

Anyone who thinks that wikipedia is a "liberal encyclopedia" obviously doesn't really use it or any other reference source very much. How many of the hundreds of thousands of entries even have the possibility of being biased politically? It's easy to tell that you have no curiosity about science, music, geography, most historical and biographical topics, or much of anything.

Yes, there are problems with a tiny percentage of controversial wikipedia entries, and I have seen some bias and vandalism from both sides. Wikipedia is a work in progress. But it is one of the truly wonderful things to come along on the internet.

There currently exists a group of people who seem to have a goal of destroying wikipedia just because they enjoy mindless destruction. Some of these people come to Freerepublic and attempt to recruit assistance without stating their true purpose.

[Antoninus]

Wikipedia is a plague for those of us who like to research obscure history on the web. Whereas in the "old days" of ca. 2003, one could look up an obscure historical subject on the web and get a myriad of interesting hits, one must now wade through 10,000 hits of the exact same Wikipedia entry (as copied on 10,000 different websites) on a given subject before getting to the truly interesting sites.

Search engines would be wise to provide a way to block all entries originating from there. Wiki nullifies what made the web interesting to begin with.

[Antoninus]

FWIW, I have become a Wiki editor and edited three entries on my lunch hour today.

I will continue to do so.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546675/posts

[onja]

I've continually used Wikipedia and found it to be very fair and balanced. On issues in which I am very knowledgable the facts are correct. I'd hate liberal activists turning wikipedia into a biased site just as much as conservatives doing so.

[onja]

I've continually used Wikipedia and found it to be very fair and balanced. On issues in which I am very knowledgable the facts are correct. I'd hate liberal activists turning wikipedia into a biased site just as much as conservatives doing so.