Accepted, no problem.
Point being, we on FR have to be at least as careful about checking on our information, as the thousands of folks who collectively edit Wikipedia. Inaccurate information is rampant on the internet.
Similarly, my regard for FR as an information source is based, not on the 95% of comments which express personal opinions and propagate rumors, but on the 5% who research what they have to say before they post it. Of course, FR is a forum with a point of view, and does not claim lack of bias.
In any event, regardless of what one is reading, skepticism is a good thing, IMO.
I did some digging dayglored, and here is a quote from the wiki article on FR in 2005:
To: Maceman
> Well, here is what Wikipedia has to say about Free Republic. “The site is blocked by several leading child-protection filters due to allegations of hate speech regarding certain groups of people, such as liberals, homosexuals, and Muslims.” They left out the impeached POS :-)
15 posted on 10/24/2005 7:16:49 AM PDT by cloud8
Here is the racist portion:
Drudge dropped the link to Free Republic by February, 1999, “because they were doing racist stuff over the [Clinton love child][28].” Drudge currently does not link.
And here is the “modern” version of the fmr Wiki article:
“Salon.com’s Jeff Stein observed in 1999 that: “[A] swelling number of haters have turned up the volume of death threats, gay-bashing, name-calling and conspiracy theories tying the father of Republican front-runner George W. Bush to drug-dealing by the CIA.”[32]”
Fascinating stuff really, as long as the article about FR was allowed equal access to editing, then fair is fair.