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.
... and those are all what OTHER people said about FR, not what Wikipedia claimed AS FACT, on the Free Republic page. Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one. But to address your items:
1. Child-protection filters block all sorts of information, like about breast and prostate cancer. They are utterly useless as a gauge of content. Wikipedia's comment was true (some child filters do/did block FR). So what?
2. The "racist" quote was from Drudge, not Wikipedia.
3. Quoting Jeff Stein of Salon.com doesn't mean a thing. (Salon? come on... the only more liberal site I can think of is Mother Jones...).
In other words, yes, what you offer is a set of OPINIONS about FR, quoted on Wikipedia. But none of it represents a non-NPOV on the part of Wikipedia, only of those mentioned in quotes. That's entirely unsurprising -- most Wikipedia pages about charged subjects have quotes.