Replies

I've been hearing a lot of yammering about Wikipedia here on Free Republic but quite honestly, I have yet to encounter a liberal bias there.

I was there during the horrific, disgusting, debate on the "term" Santorum. The article stated that the term "Santorum" was a word that described a particularly vile sexually explicit thing. They debated this for months. Arguments were made that this term, coined by some two-bit homosexual activist in San Francisco was a valid word of significance.

Some conservative wag came along and made a similar reference about Hillary Clinton and it was deleted forthwith without argument. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Similarly, the word Islamofascism was debated for ages. Liberals screaming and yelling that it was just a FOX News creation, a non-word made up by conservatives and deserved no place in an encyclopedia despite thousands of Google hits on the word.

So "Santorum" made up by some two-bit activist is a real word of significance, but "Islamofascism" used on major news networks and by pundits and with thousands of Google hits was "not a real word".

No, no liberal bias.

I just went over to view the Rick Santorum article on Wikipedia and it was quite well done. The article even states how he has a great deal of sincerity and charisma that makes him "less appalling" to even his harshest critics on the left.

Of course, the article touches upon his controversial remarks on same-sex marriage. Why shouldn't it? Having conservative opinions is nothing to be ashamed about and nothing to hide from.

Just to test the balance of Wikipedia, I journeyed on to the Hillary Clinton article and in that article is a fairly large section that outlines her scandals, including the cattle trades, Whitewater, her husband's infidelities, the controversy surrounding the Vince Foster death, the Ghandi comment, and so forth.

So the Wikipedia site seems quite fair and balanced to me. Seems to me that some Freepers are just bound and determined to take offense where none exists.