[kingu]

Umm, some of the biggest threats are the latimes.com, the nytimes.com, salon.com, etc. I agree with your concept - a more balanced group of editors will give a generally more balanced resource.

I don't agree with your methods, however. I'm sure that plenty have gone there, edited an entry, and minutes later had that entry restored, thereby demonstrating to them the futility of trying to change a liberal mind, and in effect validating your charge.

Had that been my only experience there, I would have just shrugged and ignored this post. Instead I've gone through and edited dozens of articles, fixing grammar here and there, spell checking, and indeed, putting in accurate facts rather than the latest liberal drivel to come off the line.

To others: If you're a fan of any topic, there's an entry in the wikipedia for it, and likely a couple, and likely in desperate need of real editing. Avoid the hotspots, find topics you're comfortable in demonstrating authoritative knowledge in, and dig in and have fun. If you happen by those hotspots later on, people will take your point of view more seriously, and in the meantime you're going to be improving a resource that people do indeed use as a reference.

[lqclamar]

Umm, some of the biggest threats are the latimes.com, the nytimes.com, salon.com

That's true for the MSM, but I'm talking about net-specific liberalism. Wikipedia is so dangerous because there are hundreds of mimic sites that copy its articles verbatim and google - the widest used search engine - picks them all up and multiplies them by the thousands.

Suppose you didn't have an opinion either way on Bush and you wanted to find out who he was and what he stood for. Imagine if you went to Google and typed in "George W. Bush," and the first 10 hits that came up were the left-controlled Wikipedia article on him and copycat sites with that same article that lift their text from Wikipedia.

It's not quite that bad yet but it's trending that way. Right now the wikipedia article on Bush is the #3 hit for him on Google, and there are dozens of copycat sites with it deeper in the search results.

The Wikipedia site on Bill Frist is the #2 hit above both the NY Times and LA Times site profiles of Frist. Its Tom DeLay article is #4. Its Ann Coulter article is #5. Type in just about any conservative name and the wikipedia article is almost always in the top 10 and almost always outranks even the major MSM newspaper sites. That makes it a VERY dangerous medium especially when any article about a conservative is controlled by vicious left wingers with a political agenda.

[x]

To others: If you're a fan of any topic, there's an entry in the wikipedia for it, and likely a couple, and likely in desperate need of real editing. Avoid the hotspots, find topics you're comfortable in demonstrating authoritative knowledge in, and dig in and have fun. If you happen by those hotspots later on, people will take your point of view more seriously, and in the meantime you're going to be improving a resource that people do indeed use as a reference.

That's good advice. It looks like a lot of this is "I believe this and they believe that." That sort of thing goes on forever. But if you really know about a topic it carries a lot more weight.

If Wikipedia really is supervised by high school students they're in big trouble. At some point management will wake up and get professional or someone else will scoop away their market.