In addition, the website is far less technically viable than it would have you realize. It can take hours to get on and get access to posting plus editing one or two simple paragraphs. The thing is a horrible " black hole" for time, and that of course, also favors posters with very little else to do and very few real-world responsibilities. I have written several articles on it, which have been reproduced over the Internet, and in my opinion: chuck it - the project os hopeless.
I'll keep that in mind if I ever decide to go there.
I'm not the author of this thread.
I've been on other forums where liberals and conservatives debate the issues. Liberals use wikipedia as a source, but I've also noticed that when I find something that helps me make my case and reference an entry at wikipedia...the liberals will then discount it as an unreliable source or just say that the particular item was biased.
I've also notice that when I've found useful info at wikipedia that's controversial to liberals...sometimes a "neutrality warning" label later appears at the wikipedia entry that I referenced.
I usually use the search box at the main page and search for what I'm looking for. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
There is some controversial info that liberals took issue with, for example, on entries related to "Nation of Islam" , Malcolm X, Hamas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
(read the entries from the bottom of the page and upward to get a good grasp of some really controversial stuff!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X
(the remarks Malcolm X made when he was taking pleasure over the assassination of President Kennedy were disgusting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas