[risk]

Get an account and make your own additions.

[West Coast Conservative]

Wikipedia allows anyone to edit the articles. So, I don't know if there is some VLWC going on.

And Objectivism isn't leftism, IMO.

[LibWhacker]

Not only does the left form an overwhelming number of the Wikipedia editors, but they have shrewdly established themselves both in the formal and informal power structure of Wikipedia.

No wonder I hate that worthless piece of trash. Google and the other search engines ought to ban it from coming up during searches.

[Strategerist]

Wales is a self-admitted admirer of Ayn Rand and her Godless philosophical system called Objectivism.

Anyone who considers Ayn Rand or Objectivism "Leftist" is a moron.

[nuconvert]

I've noticed more and more "hijacked" Wikipedeia sites lately. Some are full of four letter words. They usually aren't around for too long.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Actually I found the Wikipedia a valuable resource for researching the Schiavo case. There wasn't a hint of bias for either side. WikiNews is a great news portal as well.

[explodingspleen]

If you see a problem with the article, fix it yourself.

If you aren't willing to invest your time, then I don't how you can object that the larger number of contributors are leftist... you're part of the problem!

[smoothsailing]

First Post,Newbie?

[Racehorse]

According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the 116th most visited website on the Internet. By comparison, Encyclopedia Britannica is ranked 2,153.

Not very meaningful.  Britannica provides only very general articles via its free pages.  The in depth articles require a subscription.

[kingu]

There's a detailed discussion page that goes over almost all the issues in the article; Wikipedia generally prides itself on presenting the most objective viewpoint on the web. There are plenty of conservatives as well as liberals who contribute and edit articles.

If you'll look at that discussion page, you'll see detailed arguments for both sides, careful discussion as to particular wording, etc.

I don't agree with a lot of things I read out there, but I put Wikipedia in the basket of 'generally fair.'

[Theresawithanh]

I like Wikipedia, it's igot a lot of stuff I find interesting, being a person who loves looking stuff up. Haven't noticed any bias.

Welcome to FR.

[beckett]

Lots of people have complained about Wikipedia. Its reputation for shabbily thrown together and unreliable "facts" is pretty well known by now.

[Mr. Mojo]

One of the best reference sites on the web, actually. ....relatively unbiased, thorough.

And btw, Ayn Rand is about as far from "the American Left" as possible.

[Echo Talon]

well edit it yourself

[mowkeka]

Yes, Wikipedia is leftist. Which is why I go on their and make editions. For example, I changed Michael Moore's description from "liberal" to "ultra-liberal."
I wonder if it's still up.

[mowkeka]

My "ultra-liberal" label was taken down. Yet, they refer to Michael Savage as a "right-wing" talk show host. So, I changed Michael Moore's label to "left-wing."
That better stick, cause you can't have double standards.

[Tax Government]

Ah. Wikipedia is another venue for making out position known. Freepers should camp out there.

[LibertarianInExile]

The left rules the mass media. How is it different on sites like this?

And you're a real dumbass if you think Wikipedia sucks because its founder likes Ayn Rand. Wikipedia sucks because nobody on the right CARES enough to revise it. I've revised Reagan's page on numerous occasions, but it almost instantly reverts because the left's more tenacious about its lying than the right is about maintaining honesty.

Tom DeLay's situation demonstrates the proof of that. RINOs and Pubbies are all scurrying to leftist lies, while the left stands tall in King County and at CBS even after their lies are exposed for even the blind to see.

[CyberAnt]

Is this connected with the Wiccan religion ..??

[Always A Marine]

Ping to read after sleep clears my head...