[CreviceTool]

Now that Wikipedia is the most popular reference site on the Web, shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action? I see that references to conservatives are filled with questions and allusions, while liberals are portrayed in the best possible light. Should a Rapid Response Team be assembled, if not already?

[Panerai]

Why did you not use the real title of the article "Wikipedia overtaking major news sites" ?

[manwiththehands]

Any 6-year-old can contribute to Wikipedia. All anyone has to do is write a page. Of course they reserve the right to "edit" anything they wish. I don't consult Wiki ... it's usually trash.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Do not change the headline from that found at the original source. Thank you.

[podkane]

Now that Wikipedia is the most popular reference site on the Web, shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action? I see that references to conservatives are filled with questions and allusions, while liberals are portrayed in the best possible light. Should a Rapid Response Team be assembled, if not already?

Of course. A argument is never won by complaining that the other side shows itself in a good light... I personally find timelines very useful ... can put the isolated events and out-of-context quotes we get fed from the MSM into a useful structure.

[SteveMcKing]

I have found blatant bias in Wikipedia, usually over inane topics that don't matter too much, but obviously written by teenagers or political hacks.

[Arkinsaw]

shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action? I

I edited there a while. You cannot win a logical argument with a liberal. Because they are always so right, every time. No matter what you do, it will get reverted, and then fought over, and the argument will continue until they win or hell freezes over.

Its pointless. Just let it go completely moonbat liberal.

[airborne]

Really? I've never been there.

[Sun]

They did a bad job covering the Terri Schiavo case.

The liberals thinks they are so credible, which tells us something.

[AndyJackson]

Wikipedia overtaking major news sites

The original title is misleading. As the article says "The Wikipedia... has ... become the most popular reference site on the Web, fast overtaking several major news sites." The article confuses information reference and news - which is a failing of the news media itself. It does not help that Wikipedia actually has news on its front page - a business it should stay strictly out of.

[satchmodog9]

Wikipedia is dubious at best on a lot of information. It is frightening that history and facts are now subject to even more revision and altering on a grand scale.

[konaice]

shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action?

Wikipedia is useless as a reference source itself. It is usefull to find links to other sites.

If you don't know, how it works, you may find it interesting to surf on over there and post an article. Within days, if not minutes, your article will be turned around, inside out, upside down, and come to postulate the the exact opposite of what ever you said about any thing you care to mention.

It is the revisionist's dream, and the historian's nightmare because anything posted is subject to revision by any know-nothing with a chip on his shoulder. It is usefull only for those things that contain no controversy at all.

That it would be more popular than CNN is not supprising.

[AntiGuv]

I read a couple weeks ago that Wikipedia is planning to take measures to improve the integrity of their pages, after someone did something unseemly (I don't remember what it was) to the entry for Pope Benedict XVI.

[cardinal4]

Isnt it open source?

[Tim Long]

shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action?

It's not a bad idea, but the fact is liberals have nothing better to do than keep going back to pages and re-editing them. Most of the time they don't even offer a biased re-edit. They just erase your new text.

[pepperhead]

Should a Rapid Response Team be assembled, if not already?

Look up what they say about Free Republic and then think about how fair they are going to be.

[kpp_kpp]

if half the freepers that bashed wikipedia as a leftist site spent half as much time there as they do here it would make a huge difference. yes it is a lot of work and yes libs are going to try revising truth out of the picture but with the number of visits that occur over the the message is worth maintaining.

certainly more worthwhile than the silliness of "freeping" an online poll.

(i won't believe it is "leftist" until i start hearing loads of stories of freepers being banned from editing -- so far i don't think that is the case, it is just that the libs are more diligent)

[the invisib1e hand]

Big-Orwellian-Mistake alert. crowd mentality mistaken for authority and every bit as reliable as the wind.

[SamAdams76]

I've been hearing a lot of yammering about Wikipedia here on Free Republic but quite honestly, I have yet to encounter a liberal bias there. True, the site is maintained by many thousands of volunteers with the authority to revise and change any article. But they police themselves pretty well. If somebody was to edit an entry with a lot of crap, it usually gets fixed within a few hours, if not minutes.

I find the site pretty amazing myself. For example, the day after the new iPod (Nano) was launched (last Thursday), the entry for iPod was already updated with the Nano fully integrated into it and by reading it, you'd think the Nano had been out for years already!

It might never be as accurate and as thorough as the Britannica or Encarta, but is sure is more up-to-the-moment.

[bvw]

Wilkipedia will become not just overabundant in lies, propaganda, half-truths and slanders as it is now, but rampant and overflowing with lies. The lies will overwhelm any truth in it.

There are social dynamic physics at work, and physics is physics.

[LiteKeeper]

Wikipedia definitely shows up on the LEFT side of my screen when I access it.