[Mattsanchez]

In 2001, Bernard Goldberg wrote his groundbreaking book Bias to confirm what we already knew: the media colored the news according to a liberal ideology. Today, Wikipedia, the “world’s largest encyclopedia,” has the potential of becoming the liberal left’s largest propaganda machine.

[caver]

Yep

[Mr. K]

Uh-huh

[Cincinatus]

“Nobody goes there anymore — it’s too crowded.” — Yogi Berra

[CharacterCounts]

Go to Wikipedia and search on Ronald Reagan. Should answer your question.

[arderkrag]

Wikipedia is billed as the world's largest encyclopedia, but is it also the world's largest propaganda tool for smearing conservatives and promoting leftist views?

No. Next question.

[Rebelbase]

The names of 31,000 scientists who disagree with the man made cause of Global Warming will be released today. I wonder how many times that fact will get posted then edited out of the Wiki Global Warming page?

[RepublitarianRoger2]

Interesting game to play: Edit out any biased, left-leaning text you find on Wikipedia. Try to guess how long it will take before that text is put right back in again. Sometimes it’s less than a minute.

[VanillaMilkSheikh]

This is why if I’m wanting to look something up, I like to search conservapedia.com to see if they have an article on the topic, before going to wikipedia. I find them to provide a helluva lot less left-wing.

[alloysteel]

Why should the political bias not surprise anybody? For people NOT of that orientation, the slant is immediately obvious. For those oriented to that way of thinking, they simply could not see it, but may feel comfortable with the environment of the screed.

Wikipedia is just an extension of the D*m*cr*t*c Und*rgr**nd.

[Melchior]

Writers who use Wikipedia do so at their own peril. Most chose to avoid the service because it simply cannot be trusted. Thus, when one encounters a footnote or endnote that makes use of Wikipedia an eyebrow is raised — and the reputation of the author suffers.

[DuncanWaring]

Just look at the respective entries for George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.

[Tzimisce]

...no, you think so?

[Arkancide]

My own efforts to enhance Bill Clinton's Wikipedia entry with references to Mena, Fahmy Malak, the boys on the tracks etc were reversed within seconds by some creep! That's why I started www.arkancide.com

[DuncanWaring]

Just look at the respective entries for George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.

[TNPatriot]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[TBP]

We knew this already. There is a good article on the subject at Conservapedia.

It’s also waaaaaayyyyy too easy to tamper with, as Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten showed in one of his columns last year.

Still, it’s good for some basic information on subjects that aren’t political, like lists of who won certain awards and that kind of data.

[TBP]

We knew this already. There is a good article on the subject at Conservapedia.

It’s also waaaaaayyyyy too easy to tamper with, as Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten showed in one of his columns last year.

Still, it’s good for some basic information on subjects that aren’t political, like lists of who won certain awards and that kind of data.

[fieldmarshaldj]

What is so creepy about Wikipedia, especially regarding current members of Congress, is the overattention to the minutiae of Republican members, nearly to the point of analyzing their bowel habits to paint them in the most negative light (with a conclusion that they’re merely just “temporarily occupying” seats until a Democrat savior comes in to properly take their place), while there’s nothing but glowing reviews of rodent members (or for some, very small and to-the-point entries that make no mention of their moonbat voting records or other personal peccadilloes or allegations of incompetence).

[Masti]

I couldn't agree with you more on a statement that wikipedia is the largest BIASED encyclopedia on line.