Replies

I'd say that is fair, if I were a communist. You left out the "D" grade he received in his college speech class Wikipedia felt compelled to include.

The reason I "left out" the D grade was that what I posted was not from wikipedia. It was from that phoney conservative site conservapedia

Overall wikipedia is fairer and less judgemental of Rush than conservapedia. It gives basic information, positives, and negatives. Conservapedia gives basic information, and negatives.

wikipedia: "Some progressive groups and individuals have questioned Limbaugh's accuracy."

conservapedia: "Limbaugh has repeatedly been the subject of scandal and controversy."

And as for that "D" grade: Context. Context. Context.

The reason Wikipedia felt compelled to include it was "Rush failed Speech" is an "Einstein failed math" thing.

As you (well not you, but any rational person) would realize if you bothered to read the citation for the statement
(5)^ Smollar, David J. "RADIO: The prof who 'flunked' Rush Limbaugh in speech is alive and well and running a California university campus." The Orange County Register. February 25, 1996. Pg. F3

"Overall wikipedia is fairer and less judgmental of Rush than conservapedia. It gives basic information, positives, and negatives."

Interesting observation. Just because a site lists a lengthy page of information regarding an individual doesn't necessarily mean that they are providing "information, positives, and negatives."

Being a "rational person", you seem to think that just because Conservapedia did not provide a lengthy history; they are providing "basic information, and negatives."

I will allow Conservapedia some wiggle room, taking into account the fact that it is a new site compared to Wikipedia. As time progresses, I'll will continue to evaluate the substance of their information.

As for your asinine attempt to present Wikipedia as a more "fairer" site, I would beg to differ. The selective information they provided relating to Mr. Limbaugh's "Philosophy", as well as their information provided under; "Balance and point of view", and, "Questions about accuracy" were rather selective in the words they chose to use as well as the details they chose to provide. Compared to, let's say, Howard Stern, for example. Mr. Limbaugh's profile is quite exhaustive in comparison. But then again, for a "rational person" such as yourself, Wikipedia is just being "fairer" and "less judgmental".

Or perhaps you're a contributing poster at Wikipedia. I do not know. I do believe Wikipedia serves Kool Aid. Or would you rather stick your head in the sand, Oztrich Boy?