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.
I haven't heard about the ideology of weikepedia (sp), but if what you say is true, keep up the good work.
Almost every socialist, Communist and even generic left-wing Democrat nesting on the Protest Warrior forums will use wikipedia entries in order to buttress their fallacious points about some aspect of American society or foreign policy.
Regardless of how inaccurate or unreliable its sources are-and despite the alleged quality of the science-related content on that website, I can assert with some degree of certainty that its political screeds are worse than useless-they will still be used by clueless liberals in order to illustrate whatever specious point they are arguing at the moment.
Personally, I think that going tit-for-tat with these people is akin to arguing with Creationists, Trotskyites, Salafi Muslims, or some other group of throughly indoctrinated fanatics-who will not be persuaded of their errors even by the most flawless logic, since their beliefs don't stem from rationality or empirical evidence to begin with-and is not very productive in the long-run.
However, highlighting the intellectual vacuity of their main source of information is a valuable exercise in and of itself.
Keep up the good work!