How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, Part 1

Pages: 1 2

There was no “solution” to these derelictions if Wikipedia were to retain its basic identity as a “democratic” encyclopedia. There was only a trade-off which in “solving” this problem of defamation created a treatment worse than the disease: the birth of a “more equal” class of 20,000 volunteer editors who had greater level of authority to alter and control entries. Their responsibility is to act as guards for all articles about living people, reviewing suggested edits before they go live. The decision was made by the Wikimedia Foundation, the California nonprofit that operates the site, not only to prevent libelous vandalism but also to reduce the threat of lawsuits. Wales and Wikimedia chairman Michael Snow both voiced their support for the new policy, with “benevolent dictator” Wales noting soberly that the great informational power they had created was a “serious responsibility.”

This sentiment is a cousin to Google’s corporate motto “Don’t be evil,” also a manifestation of the utopian hacker ethos. Of course, as with Google’s occasional failures to live up to its values, Wikipedia’s altruism in theory enables malice in practice.

Wikipedia, continually guided by the ideal of universal human goodness, entrusted greater power to its most devoted, loyal user base. By definition, more authority was granted to individuals with the significant free time to devote to a volunteer, utopian endeavor to shape the world’s information into a unified “consensus.” By and large such individuals are more likely to be leftists than the general population. Wikipedia’s own demographic statistics demonstrate this further: Only 13 percent are women. The average age for a contributor is 26.8 and most do not have a girlfriend, wife, or children. So, alone and apparently without a meaningful, fulfilling career, the devoted Wikipedian instead finds excitement in devoting his time to filling Ann Coulter’s entry with 35.6 percent criticism.

The most significant, blatant examples of bias will be found in these living person entries. To see the difference one need only compare Beck’s entry with its 23% rate of criticism to the more antiseptic entry for Beck’s TV show which has far less.

The bias in entries for persons no longer living and historical subjects is less marked and, when present, more subtle, as I will show in later essays in this Wikipedia series when I consider the treatment of such controversial and politicized historical subjects as Cold War espionage, the New Left, the Black Panther Party, etc. But even here, the sort of strong bias verging on character assassination sometimes found in the living persons entries occasionally intrudes. The Wikipedia entry for Che, the top google search result for “Che Guevara,” is an example. The 12,707 word entry features a single paragraph with 235 words of criticism – a modest 1.8 percent rate. This suggests that a Marxist revolutionary who commanded the guns executing the “enemies of the revolution” after the fall of Havana is far less controversial than Ann Coulter. And when one frustrated Wikipedian described the entry as a “hagiography” and protested the exclusion of the work of prominent Guevara-critic Humberto Fontova, whose analysis of the revolutionary’s  nihilistic violence stands as an antidote to the romanticism of his apotheosis as St. Che, he was rebuked by a high level contributor (one of the 4000 most active) with the telling handle “Redthoreau.” The justification for the exclusion: facts from Fontova are “written in an hyperbolic and un-encyclopedic tone.” Thus Fontova’s informed view of Guevara’s bloody career is missing from the entry because Redthoreau objects to Fontova describing Che as “revered by millions of imbeciles.” In contrast, the Wikipedia entry for another of the Left’s icon,  Noam Chomsky, asserts that America is a genocidal terror state worse than Nazi Germany, a sentiment even many leftists would characterize as hyperbolic. Yet Chomsky has the most detailed and respectful entries of any political commentator. And as of mid-August 2011 his page had an even higher level of protection than most living persons: a lock logo with the warning that the profile could not be edited by unregistered or new users.

Incidentally, Fontova’s own Wikipedia entry is 826 words, 432 of which are criticism, an unusually high 52 percent. Unsurprisingly, the primary author and watchdog of Fontova’s entry is Redthoreau.

Our political culture today revolves around debate of contested ideological symbols. For better or worse, arguments about the merits of Coulter and Moore, Beck and Olbermann are actually proxy battles in the culture war between the Right and Left. Unfortunately, Wikipedia, because of its decision to create an elite group of “information specialists,” has picked its side in this war and is now fighting on the front lines.

*For these analyses I’m not counting table of contents, bibliographies, or references in the word count – just the introduction and bodies of the entries written by Wikipedians.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_mac

    This is no small issue. I know that many of us here express unqualified disdain for Wikipedia, but the fact is, regardless of its relative merit (or lack of), it is widely used and believed.

  • Shmuel Kahn

    There are teams of anti-Semites who systematically distort and insert anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bias in Wikipedia article srelated to Jews or Israel. The wiki administration refuses to do anything about this. One of the worst serial vandals is a British Stalinist anti-Semite named Roland Rance, who has sabotaged hundreds of entries. At wikipedia you become a more "senior editor/posteur" the more edits you have already made. So unemployed ignorant high school dropouts with nothing better to do rise and advance and become the most senior "editors/posteurs" at Wikipedia, able to sabotage and harass other posteurs and postings and able to "defend" libelous and biased "edits" they have made by locking certain articles and entries.

    • welldoneson

      "unemployed high school dropouts", the street troops of the hard left.
      cannon fodder. drones. not to put too fine a point on it, but… they're (&*(^*%%

  • Lfox328

    I'm a teacher, who does allow students to use Wikipedia – but, only as a starting point, for science-related topics. With the exception of certain Leftist causes in science, Wikipedia is relatively helpful. It's style is easy to read, it covers basic science topics fairly well, and it provides references to other sites.

    If I taught Social Studies, of course, I couldn't allow that bias to enter the classroom.

    • Lfox328

      As I think about it, I should tell my students about the Wikipedia biases, lest they rely on it in other classes.

  • David Gerard

    Though it's not a living bio, what about the Ayn Rand article? A paragon of objectivity! Or something that sounds like that.

  • fredbauder

    There is is something to the problem you are bringing up. However, like your work, the quality of most editing on Wikpedia by conservative editors is of low quality, similar, in fact, to Glenn Beck's "research".

    Responsible editing any conservative is welcome on Wikipedia. We assume they are there to improve the quality of the information.

    • lscott

      On the subject of quality of editing, would you please rephrase your next-to-last sentence. It makes no sense as written.

      • fredbauder

        Responsible editing by any conservative is welcome on Wikipedia.

        • Reason_For_Life

          Not true. Global warming articles by non warmists are removed/rewritten within a day. There's a complete contingent of people that keep a 24-7 watch on all AGW material. At least that was true a few years ago. Most non-warmists don't even bother to try to write articles for Wikipedia anymore.

          Political subjects are scrutinized for content and continually revised when there is grant money at stake.

          • fredbauder

            I'm sorry, but there is little information in reliable sources which would support a non warmist perspective. Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge, not of misinformation.

          • Reason_For_Life

            Every time there is a debate on AGW the warmists lose and lose big which is why they no longer will debate. The facts are against them.

            Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick and many others have ripped apart the Hockey Stick, proven that the Medieval Warm period existed and exposed the East Anglia attempt to cover up the defects in tree ring analysis.

            There has been a loss of credibility of the warmists. All they have left is academia and Wikipedia. Soon, they won't even have that.

          • fredbauder

            I agree the anti-warmists have won the political argument, world-wide, and that nothing effective will be done in the short term. However, the percentage of carbon-dioxide and other green-house gases in the atmosphere, particularly water, continues to steadily increase, see the Wikipedia article on the Keeling Curve. So whatever will happen, will happen, but by then it will be history.

            Wikipedia, and academia, only play the role of chorus in this tragedy.

          • welldoneson

            freddy, since science has long told us that man's CO2 is not a significant factor in climate change, your own bias is obvious.

          • ProfNickd

            How would you know anything about global warming? Oh, that's right: you read the entry on Wikipedia.

        • David Whittle

          That's not true in my experience. Check out Critical Race Theory and the appalling bias there, and take a look at the the outright bullying I experienced from a half-dozen lefties who don't even pretend to hide their bias. It's obvious that they think the only thing they need to say to discredit as source is that it comes from a "right wing" source, such as Investors Business Daily or the Washington Times. The sophistry out there is unbelievable. I'm a published author and have been a guest lecturer at Duke University, and most of my well-sourced, well-written contributions were deleted again and again for reasons that make reasonable people and professional editors cringe. I finally gave up. It was not only frustrating, it was a serious test of my professional composure.

        • David Whittle

          Welcome, perhaps, but only because it gives the sadistic cretins on the left another chance to sharpen their arguments by ganging up on the lone voice conservatives foolish enough to venture into any politically-charged territory. If you want an education in the bullying idiots on the one hand and the sophistries of the sophisticated on the other, and how they cooperated to destroy my motivation to contribute to Wikipedia, just study the recent Talk for the entry on Critical Race Theory.

  • Free & Proud

    Wikipedia is infected with neo facist Islamists bent on spreading sharia inspired villification of Western civilization and its democratic underpinnings. Two of the most vociferous of these are Nableezy, an Egyptian native who at one time resided in Chicago and Supreme Deliciousness, a Syrian Arab who currently lives in Sweden. What is amazing is that most of these editors do their editing from the very countries they detest.

    • welldoneson

      that helps illustrate the point that the hard left are closely aligned with Islamists.
      they use the same tactics and share the same goals.

  • Reason_For_Life

    Wikipedia is no different from the average college classroom and reflects the dominant views of intellectuals. The problem isn't that Wikipedia's founders believe that men are fundamentally good, it's that the dominant intellectual forces in the US are far left.

    The bias of Wikipedia reflects the biases of modern intellectuals and the failure of those challenging the leftist status quo to make a dent in the culture. Don't blame Wikipedia for your own failure to influence intellectual trends. Wikipedia is a symptom, not a cause.

    The reason that Wikipedia is biased on all subjects with political implications is that for leftists the only thing of importance is politics. With no private lives of their own, they concentrate on the lives of others through politics. Politics is their life. This was true for two hundred years and will be true for the next few centuries as well even if they are defeated.

    •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

      "The problem isn't that Wikipedia's founders believe that men are fundamentally good, it's that the dominant intellectual forces in the US are far left. "

      You're missing a step in your logic. Because Wikipedia's founders believe that men are fundamentally good they created a system which was capable of being hijacked by dominant intellectual forces. If Wikipedia's founders had the tragic view of human nature then they would have foreseen that a system set up in this fashion would result in the problems I've identified.

      • fredbauder

        Neither Wikipedia nor its founders believe or believed "men are fundamentally good", what they did believe is that most people, when presented with an opportunity to contribute knowledge to the project will try in good faith to do so. That assumption has proven to be operationally true. During the last 10 years there has been plenty of experience with the exceptions to the rule, from both the right and left.

        As your premise that Wikipedia's founders believe that men are fundamentally good is not well founded any subsequent development along that line is not solid. As to "a system which was capable of being hijacked by dominant intellectual forces". point taken. But what institution is not? Certainly not Harvard University or Fox News, or for that matter Christianity.

        •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

          I've provided quotes from the founders in which they say explicitly that they believe people are basically good. Read Andrew Lih's book Wikipedia Revolution if you doubt me.

          Some institutions are more capable of being hijacked by the Left than others.

          • fredbauder

            You quote Jimmy Walls, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipeda, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” I think that quote might be accurate, but it remains an operational definition, "we find", that, it turns out, is my experience generally, even biased editors are motivated to add information about their view of things that has some factual basis and are eager to set that factual basis forth. Which is the basic criteria for inclusion, publication by a reliable source. I'm not a Andrew Lih fan; you might consider that he, too is expressing a viewpoint.

            Ward Cunningham​ has never had anything to do with Wikipedia although I think he generally supports the idea. He invented the wiki software. Using it does rely on open editing and the "assumption of good faith"; it is a way of relating to people, and serves well in many contexts.

            "Some institutions are more capable of being hijacked by the Left than others." deserves serious study. I'm pretty sure authoritarian institutions, (Here I reveal my bias is that authoritarianism defines the right wing) are just as vulnerable, and maybe more so, than open ones.

    • Ghostwriter

      And where has socialism worked,fredbauer?

  • longtail

    believe non of what you read and only half of what you see, use wiki for what it was intended, a dictionary or tech reference. i only use because i can't spell worth a damn.

  • James

    It's not about bias but about who knows how to game the system better. Liberal activists came to wikipedia early and gained favor with the hierarchy, knew how to work the system, keep their activism incorporated into the articles and once something stays for a while it's very hard to weed out and usually takes years to finally do it as long as there are those there to "protect" their pet articles. This goes beyond just American politics, but basically any topic that is contentious. It's more about who plays the wikipedia game well than what kind of beliefs you have. There's a website called Wikipedia Review that has documented a lot of this "game playing" and who has been able to work the system.

  • tlwinslow

    With all its faults, Wikipedia is the greatest free resource for the study of history, and any outright false info. will soon be reverted because it has to have a reference to back it up. The Historyscoper regularly uses Wiki and pumps it up with new info. where needed. When it comes to hot topics like Israel it's Pat Benatar's Love Is A Battlefield playing 24/7/365, at least there's some light in the heat, and each side can start its own Wiki for their favorite subset of articles since the software is free.

    Try the Historyscoper's free new Muslimscope to learn the current world Muslim situation including leaders and orgs., complete with numerous links to Wiki, many of which are pretty valuable:

    • ziontruth

      "…and any outright false info. will soon be reverted because it has to have a reference to back it up."

      In the same parallel universe where fear of being shame means politicians always tell the truth.

      • rich___b

        History is one of the worst aspects of Wikipedia. So much is distorted or outright wrong. If I were a teacher I would never allow the use of Wikipedia.

  • crypticguise

    Wikipedia should not be trusted on any political, social issues of the last 150 years or so. The leftists have indeed taken control of rewriting the truth and much of history.

    • David Whittle

      Definitely agree. Check out Conservapedia.

  • Sheila

    I don't use Wikipedia, and don't allow my children to use it as a source. They complain, but as I've explained to them, the site has been known to have misinformation and disinformation. Much like a liar, then, how can you trust anything posted there?

  • Gnarly Erik

    One reason Wikipedia is so popular is that most people perceive it as neutral. Media bias is the first complaint of conservatives who disagree with anything in the media. Conservatives have moved so far right they now view moderate Republicans as ‘RINO’s’ and democrats as ‘traitors’. Their notions about media mirrors these seriously skewed viewpoints. Comparing Coulter’s numbers to Michael Moore’s is obtuse since she appears – apparently by design – hundreds of times more often than Moore does in print.

    Conservapedia? Are you kidding? Anything with ‘conservative’ in its very name is as ‘fair and balanced’ as Fox News is. Conservatives seem to be trying to wall themselves into their own self-congratulatory enclave, divorced from reality.

    • welldoneson

      gnarly, your accusation of "walling themselves in" applies increasingly to the left, as boomers mature and realize what a load of nonsense they've been seeing from that left.

    • David Whittle

      The idea that the most watched cable news network, and the predominant political philosophy in a slightly right-of-center country, are "divorced from reality" is, ahem, seriously divorced from reality.

  • Captain Obvious

    Couple points to consider:
    1. When referring to "the foundational bases for the organization and distribution of information on the internet today" you do yourself a disservice in omitting the Drudge Report, which serves more traffic than chosen examples Facebook and Twitter COMBINED.

    2. You refer to Randian Objectivism and the "hacker" ethos, and state "What binds together these ideologies is a utopian ideal that human beings are more prone to altruism rather than self-interest." This is simply false. Even the most cursory review of Objectivist philosophy reveals the opposite: That humans are more prone to self interest than altruism, and it is the denial of that truth which leads to strife and conflict… that altruism's means are counterproductive to its stated goals and that those goals are actually achieved by means of a thoughtful self-interested pursuit of the same.

    •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

      1. That's obviously false. Drudge's Alexa ranking is 427 and both Twitter and Facebook are in the top 10.

      2. I'm not slurring Objectivism. Wales is misinterpreting and misapplying it. And the Objectivist quality inherent in Wikipedia is not the aspect about Altruism but rather the idea that one can create a consensus, objective version of reality.

  • Steeloak

    Part of the problem with Wikipedia is that the founders did not expect to be targeted by paid advocates, funded by the left, working in boiler room operations whose sole purpose is to police leftist orthodoxy in any form of media with mass reach. Any editing of Wikipedia that deviates from leftist orthodoxy is immediately scrubbed.
    I first encountered this in the 2004 campaign when all references critical of John Kerry were relentlessly scrubbed. The article about the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth was kept free of anything but criticism and none of their valid points were presented.
    I then discovered this bias applied to any discussion of recent politics or any of the left's cultural icons.
    This bias has been joined recently by a very obvious anti Israel, anti-Jewish, and pro Islamist slant. I assume this is because Islamists are applying great effort to control the discussion on Wikipedia.
    Bottom line – if it's non-political, Wikipedia is a reasonable source for general information, on anything the left perceives as sacred ground – it is completely one-sided.

    • rich___b

      even general info can be iffy at times.

  • Ghostwriter

    I've been on Wikipedia numerous times and while bias is a concern,I hope it becomes a site where all views are respected.

    • I'mNotParanoid

      yeah! "boo" you for posting something reasonable! let's go for -10 !

    • David Whittle

      Once the ideological balance is tipped, there's no hope for your idealistic hopes. And the balance has been tipped. As long as it's a democracy out there and ten morons can simply shout down 1 or perhaps 2 serious scholars, using obscure points of Wikipedia cultural dogma to overrule legitimate pleas for NPOV, there's no hope for it ever recovering from its seriously slanted viewpoints.

  • Lisa Richards

    I'm so glad David Swindle has written this column and will continue doing more analysis on Wikipeida.

    Any college graduate knows that Wikipeida is forbidden as a source for essays and research papers, as well as lectures.

    Anyone who does professional research knows Wikipedia lacks scholarly references and research. It is not a viable source for anything, and certainly, it is one way to lose one's grade, as well as not be taken seriously in the field of proeffsional writing and speaking.

    Wikipedia is nothing more thanleft-wing pop-culture propganda disguised as expertise. Don't use it, if you are a student. If you want research sites, check out Discover The Networks, JSTOR, read books by the actual source you are researching, go to the actual experts on specific topics such as Hoover Institute, Freedom Center, universities

    •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

      Thanks, Lisa.

  • James Hovland

    It's really not surprising that conservatives think wiki is bias. The truth isn't on their side. Take Fox viewers for example. When your most trusted news source feeds you so much bad information, you can't help but be a tad to the ignorant side.

    FYI: The fact that you believe something, doesn't make it a fact. Wiki is about information, not accusations or opinions.

    • Steeloak

      Thank God we have unbiased factual sources for the truth like Wikipedia, Salon, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, etc. Wait, don't 98% of the reporters & editors vote Democrat? Nah, no bias there.
      /sarcasm off

      • I'mNotParanoid

        yeah, 'cause everything in this world really should be narrowed down to whether you are a Democrat or Republican, nevermind that those 2 parties only really matter and exist in the U.S. alone.

  • Odd

    If anyone here have a problem with “controversy” ratios, feel free to add things yourselves. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, so I don’t see why this article exists. Perhaps the Left are just better at finding facts and adding them to Wikipedia than the Right? Perhaps Keith Olberman isn’t as controversial as Glenn beck?

    Comparing “controversy” ratios is like comparing the number of pages in the Koran vs the Bible. It’s meaningless.

    • Steeloak

      You can add whatever you want, the problem is that anything that reflects a non-leftist approved point of view is quickly removed. It is not for lack of trying that wikipedia has a leftist bias, it is because, like Orwell's Ministry of Truth, what is allowed in must pass a political test to make sure that it adheres to party dogma.

      • HiredMind

        I think you'd be surprised. I myself am responsible for changing "Evolution of political views" to "Change of political views" on the page for Ed Schultz. It's been there for months.

        You just have to provide a good justification for the changes, that cannot be refuted.

    • Sheila

      That's the problem – anyone can add things. There have been numerous incidences of people adding outright lies and malicious gossip, in addition to simple factual errors.

      If you trust this, use it. Don't complain, though, if people fail to take you seriously as a result.

  • Gregory Kohs

    While I became concerned some years ago about duplicity and misinformation in content presented on Wikipedia, what REALLY alarmed me was how the Wikimedia Foundation was constructed to do little more than deflect intelligent criticism and collect money for an ever-growing empire of staff members who show little for all that money spent on them. Indeed, the most recent Form 990 for the non-profit shows that less than 44 cents of every dollar received is actually spent on the program services they're supposed to uphold.

    I began to write about the hypocrisy and the inconsistency at the Wikimedia headquarters, so I hope this isn't considered spam if I share a link to my extensive investigative work:

  • mlcblog

    David, I am so glad you are doing these articles. I too have noticed the extreme distance between say the Chomsky bio and others, say any conservative!l also the dichotomy between the Che and Humberto's entries and been extremely dismayed by the situation. At least you are exposing it!!!!

    Marylou Leeman

  • Octomil

    wikipedia is the same like US constitution and democracy.
    John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    therefore for i-moral and i-religious people it is "wholly inadequate"…
    for some technical issues (i.e. issues without touch to religion, philosophy and politics, …. meaning of life…. meaning of universe) it may quite good (many well informed fans contribute such entries) but everything even remotely touching someone’s world view (in the very core it is religion) it grossly tinted by a personal delusions.

  • I'mNotParanoid

    Wake up folks it's not just PBS, NPR, Wikipedia and the lamestream liberan media that are biased! Even the Christmas holiday has a liberal/letfwing bias, ever notice how Santa Claus wears red (just like those Hugo Chavez thugs and chinese Maoists) and has a thick beard, just like Marx!

    The left has so infiltrated our culture that they ever introduced their agenda into the New Testament, check out these communist-like quotes attributed to Jesus:

    "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

    Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

    And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

    I'm also boycotting

  • ImWithBachmann

    Wikipedia is the online mouthpiece for the secular atheist islamo-fascist anti-jewish communist pro-gay environmentalist wiccan culture that George Soros and Al Gore want to impose on good christian americans! You have been warned!

    • Biel_ze_Bubba

      Is this snarky parody, or sheer insanity? Impossible to tell.

  • Humberto


    Thanks for the article. Wikipedia is beyond hopeless. "As supporters of the Fulgencio Batista regime, Fontova's family went into exile to the United States," reads my Wiki entry.

    But no one in my family ever supported Batista–who in fact jailed my uncle! In fact we were "Anti-Batistianos when Anti-Batistianismo wasn't cool"–ever since 1933! My dad's brother was among the Cuban Army officers Fulgencio Batista overthrew in 1933 and fought in the ferocious (and genuine, unlike Che's in Santa Clara) Battle of El Hotel Nacional" in Sept. 1933 AGAINST Batista's people–and was almost murdered upon capture but instead only jailed.

    All attempts to get Wiki to correct this have failed. Wikipedia is a sorry joke.

    • Humberto

      Looks like Wiki FINALLY got around to correcting the libel above.


    • Reason_For_Life

      Did Wikipedia cite any sources for the claims about your family?

      The biggest problem that I've found on Wikipedia is that the leftists either don't source their claims or the sources they cite aren't real or the sources are misquoted or the sources are just wild assertions made somewhere on the net.

      If they don't cite a source it's usually nonsense. If they do cite one I check it.

      Glad to hear that they finally removed the libel against your family.

    •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

      You're welcome, Humberto. Thank YOU for your diligence in correcting the record on Communist Cuba and Che Guevara.

      • David Whittle

        Why can't reasonable people and scholars band together to cooperate to address the more outrageous abuses?

  • HiredMind

    Conservatives have jobs. 'nuff said.

    •!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

      Yeah, it basically boils down to that.

  • Ken DeMyer

    You write that Wikipedia has a leftwing bias, and then you bring up Conservapedia. Are these the sort of "conservative facts" you believe should be in Wikipedia:

    1. Modern kangaroos are descended from two ancestors on Noah’s Ark.
    2. Dinosaurs may still live among us.
    3. Islam is one of the world’s most violent religions.
    4. Evolution is racist.
    5. Many liberals don’t think lying is wrong, and even delight in it.
    6. Public schools make homosexuals.
    7. Atheists tend to be fat, and obesity impairs brain function. (This point is accompanied by photos of overweight atheists.)

    I'll stick with Wikipedia's bias, thank you very much.

  • how to find a ghostwriter

    Hello, i believe that i noticed you visited my web site thus i got here to go back the favor?.I am trying to to find issues to enhance my site!I guess its ok to use some of your ideas!!

  • Bill

    You know they are a left wing hack, just look at how they say Chris Mathews is conservative

  • joe

    right on

  • Partyforever

    Liberals are taking over Wikipedia, it’s even worse in 2015.

  • fredbauder

    Thanks for the link. I'm in good company with Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.

    I'm a fan of socialism, if it has broad societal support. Imposed, no. Imposition of socialism by an elite is a recipe for serious trouble, as history has shown.

  • Reason_For_Life

    Centralized authoritarian institutions are more vulnerable to takeovers than decentralized relatively uncontrolled institutions.

    The most outstanding examples are modern universities. The cloistered, tenured structure was developed in the Middle Ages to produce institutions whose purpose was to defend the faith. When transferred to the US these institutions were so completely bigoted that a Baptist college would not hire a Methodist to teach math, a subject not exactly a fundamental pillar of Baptist philosophy.

    To combat this Andrew White and Ezra Cornell founded Cornell University intended to be a secular institution free from religious sectarian combat. However, the medieval structure itself was so well suited to defending dogma that it survived better than the doctrines it was intended to protect. Today Cornell is one of the farthest left, most politically correct schools in the US.

    It fell to the left just as formerly religious institutions like Harvard and Yale did. Today, a non leftist math professor would have to hide his political affiliation just as Methodists had to conceal their true faith if they wanted to teach in a Baptist college.

    The structure of universities was not based on the idea that mankind is basically good. Medieval philosophy supported the belief that man was basically sinful which is why the cloistered environment was chosen, to protect students and teachers from worldly influences that might corrupt them. However, the intellectually authoritarian structure has a major weakness in that new ideas cannot be easily integrated into a closed dogmatic curriculum. When the pressure of new ideas becomes great enough the structure will dump all of it's dogmas and adopt wholly new ones. It's the institutional equivalent of brainwashing.

    By comparison, Wikipedia has many very fine articles on technical subjects and no one spends time trying to oust say, a conservative physicist from writing on relativity or a communist mathematician from writing on set theory. The same is not true of universities.

    Anyone who's willing to spend the time to re-write sections of biased articles is free to do so and to do it repeatedly because they will be facing dozens of dedicated leftist who will constantly remove your writings. That's how they got control and if you want to eliminate it you have to be more dedicated than they are.

  • Ghostwriter

    I'd like to know where socialism has ever worked,fredbauder.

  • welldoneson

    I note with amusement than anyone expressing a "belief" in Socialism has to attach so many conditions as to make the sentiment a joke. I note as well, that you're changing the subject AND patting yourself on the back. Years of practice?

  • Reason_For_Life

    Socialism has provided full employment for undertakers.