American Thinker: Wikipedia pretends to be a new kind of crowd-sourced, non-profit “people’s encyclopedia” containing fair and unbiased material. In theory, anyone is allowed to edit material, thus providing a wide range of input rather than one expert’s ideas as in conventional encyclopedias.
I have written one entire entry, on my great-grandfather, who was a candidate for president. I have edited a few other entries to correct errors.
The theory is great, but in practice Wikipedia, like most media ventures, is a vehicle for liberal ideas. Two examples may suffice.
The Wikipedia entry on fascism follows the liberal line that the political spectrum runs from fascism on the right to communism on the left. This is nonsense and the basis for the constant references to conservatives as “Nazis” by liberals, who fancy Nazis to be fascists. Any meaningful political spectrum would run from total freedom, or anarchy, on the right to totalitarian government with no freedom on the left. The Nazis were, in fact, socialists, and as Jonah Goldberg wrote in Liberal Fascism, they differed from the Soviet communists only in methods, not intended results.
When I edited the entry to provide some balance, my edit was rejected in its entirety. m0re here
h/t Really Enraged.
Wickedpedia!
You get what you pay for.
Right up there with Snopes…
Wackopedia…Many of the science entries are unreliable. I have commented multiple times that it is run by a neo-moaist cabal of global warm8ng zealots
Infogalactic is much more balanced. Give it a look.
Once I attempted to correct an entry on an obscure film, the synopsis of which was immediately wrong to anyone who’d ever seen it. My correction was undone and the error stood.
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
I go to Wikipedia and Snopes for information, but with an understanding of their bias. They are still easy one-stop shops for most information.
The university where I take classes tells students to not use Wikipedia for any reference material in academic papers. Good advice. It is not a dependable source.
The fruiter that runs it is constantly begging for donations to keep the farce going, telling the suckers Wikipedia will be forced to close down unless he gets so many hundreds of thousands of dollars by next Tuesday. It’s like some 19th Century commune in a rural area – they can’t make it pay for itself, so it finally collapses.
When Scott Brown (R-MA) was elected to the senate, his signature legislation was the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act to prevent congresscritters from insider trading based on their privileged knowledge. 60 Minutes did a segment at the time featuring Scott. Democrats gutted the legislation before actually passing it, and when Brown later lost his seat to Fauxcahontas, Harry Reed further gutted the act via amendment.
Try a ctrl-F on the Wikipedia article and search for Brown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act