It's a book of sand. A month ago I played with editing and adding content to a few pages, but I am giving now in discouragement deciding it is a waste of time.
It is a book of sand - that many young people consider as authoritative. I think it is worth freeping to ensure baalnce. If you had the support of 5 other editors, I am sure you would have been successful AND not given up!!
Concur. There is little doubt that Lefty academic types have way more time to continually screw around with the editing, than a bunch of conservatives with real jobs.
I don't know why so many people here get a vicarious thrill from engaging in picayune battles over such manifestly ridiculous issues.
The intellectual vacuity of Wiki's political references speaks for itself.
To take just one example, the hagiography of Barbara Boxer.
This is a politician who is almost universally recognized as the stupidest-and arguably, most partisan-woman in the United States Senate, and yet to read the Wiki on her political career is to get the impression that she is some courageous "progressive" reformer, whose list of accomplishments is seemingly too endless to catalogue.
Arguing with people who are so thoroughly brainwashed that they believe an habitual idiot and unrelenting harpy like Barbara Boxer is a suitable representative of their interests is beyond pointless.