Replies

But hey, don’t worry, on Wikipedia, if you wish to make any charge of rape, fraud, molestation, perversion or murder, absent a shred of evidence, against a Republican of your choice, please feel free.

Nonsense. There are Republican Wikipedians who are on there to guard articles, just as there are Democrats who want to bend articles to their favor. I would suggest registering and to place key articles on your watchlist, so any poltically-based vandalism can be corrected. Wikipedia is not the sum of all human knowledge, but it's a useful quick reference guide, especially when the articles cite references. You can't look at everything through a political mirror; what may seem like deliberate sabotage or maliciousness might be someone who merely naive or ignorant.

I suspect the Edwards scandal, should it have proper backup, will get an article.

For editing Wikipedia on political subjects, I suggest having references at the ready; the more the better. The correct way to insert a reference is using the tags in the text of the article, followed by the {{reflist}} command at the end of the article. When citing websites, include the URL and the date the Web site was accessed.

Another guideline I recommend is to cite the facts, but cite all the facts; even if some of the facts seem bad, it's better to have them out, because one's opponent will add them in anyway.

Yet another guideline is to cut out the adjectives and interjections in thought. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Wikipedia is a tool used by millions around the world. It is not a monolith controlled by Jimmy Wales and a few liberals. It's one of the important Web tools for shaping thought in the 21st Century, and if conservatives throw their hands up and abandon it, it will still be there and it will still have influence--an influence more radically leftist than you would like.

Or accusing our soldiers of various atrocities without evidence other than the "fact-checking" of the accuser's wife (see Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy.