[Sundog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

This is a reasonable bio. I've been posting quotes from it.

[AmeriBrit]

Have you seen this:(in 2 parts)


SEN. JOHN McCAIN: THE ULTIMATE "RHINESTONE HERO"

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd59.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd60.htm

[antaresequity]

McCain was also criticized for his continued use of an ethnic slur in reference to his Vietnamese captors. He told reporters, "I hate the gooks.... I will hate them as long as I live." [8] At first, he stood by his use of the slur, saying that it was "the kindest, the kindest description I can give them." [9] McCain later reversed his position and apologized.

Typical political opportunist...wouldn't have been refreshing if he stood by his original comments? The guy is scum...anyone who hasnt read the wikipedia bio should...thanks for the link...

[onyx]

Do you know that ANYBODY can add info to wikipedia?

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Yes, that's precisely the problem.

I don't know if you noticed the links section, but one of them was to a tendentious piece published in The Nation, and another to a screed carried by Prison Planet, which is basically an even nuttier version of the website run by Alex Jones, i.e. infowars.com.

This is why Wikipedia can't be relied upon as a legitimate research tool.

Leaving aside the fact that most of the credible information is copied verbatim from legitimate reference tools, e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, even the information that is not cribbed directly from another source is tainted by a pervasive left wing-and in some cases, conspiratorial-bias.

You need look no further than the Wikis of any prominent Islamic terrorist, which are unfailingly hagiographies.

The editing of entries about Islam are controlled by Islamic supremacists, and the ones about politics are dominated by left wing ideologues.

They have administrators that haven't even graduated from high school, let alone college, and yet Wikipedia purports to be an authoritative source, as if it were simply an online encyclopedia.

People can swarm Wikis-and do-and "vandalize" an entry, but most of the entries revolving around controversial political or social issues are so thoroughly riddled with inaccuracies and partisanship that it's hard to tell what constitutes vandalism, or to distinguish between a valid contribution and a drive-by.

In short, it fails on multiple levels, the most striking being its flawed methodology.