Posted on 02/09/2006 11:57:14 AM PST by NormsRevenge
I'm betting that most congressional staffers have enough sense to do their editing from their home ISP accounts, so that most of the "anonymous" edits are made by congressional staffers too.
Yes, in agreement with others here, Wikipedia is (intensely) liberally biased. On all fronts, all issues. It's a relative propoganda fest of liberalism, to the discredit of the site itself, as with those who enforce the biased content.
I've read several comments from the site as to editing difficulties and the place responds with highly emotional negation (and derision as to the inquiries/issues raised) whenever there is the suggestion of bias present, which is bias in and of itself.
Typo, previous: "propaganda" not "propoganda."
Please, explain, if you wouldn't mind. I'm always eager to read more information about the "Mr. Blum." Ha.
Yes, anyone can edit anything but there's a history published as to who does what and when along with the content, and, there are dedicated volunteers on behalf of the site that pour over all content, eventually, and correct anything that to their view is "biased" or even irregular.
Of course, you then have to contend with the bias of the volunteers themselves, so that's another story.
I think that house is rather creepy. Despite the profound view involved from that lot, it's a rather foreboding (and CREEPY) structure.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks NormsRevenge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.