[ECM]

If you use Wikipedia as anything more than a "trivia dump" you need your head examined.

[Impeach98]

Thanks for posting this. I work for Move America Forward and we've been following a pattern of this kind of behavior by a network of far-Left, anti-war, anti-Israel moderators there covering a whole range of topics.

I'm passing on this thread to my colleagues so this can be looked into and added to our list.

[RWR8189]

It looks like the deletion discussion going on now will result in "no consensus" which means the article will remain.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Bottom line: While Wikipedia is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, the issues raised by the Seigenthaler case should be carefully considered, some legal experts say. More stories on Wikipedia thanks to section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which became law in 1996, Wikipedia is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, regardless of how long an inaccurate article stays on the site. That's because it is a service provider as opposed to a publisher such as Salon.com or CNN.com.

I thought that, in order to qualify as a "service provider," you could not modify or delete "objectionable content" in any way.

[sageb1]

I've been to Wikipedia a couple of times. I thought it was edited by anyone who signed up to be an editor. I would never use it for fact-checking. I assumed it was biased to begin with. It's not much more than a semi-informational blog.