[Yeti]

I saw the same people arguing for inclusion of Santorum who were arguing against Islamofascism using the exact opposite arguments.

Well, if it's like that, then I guess I can understand how you could get frustrated. As The Beev has pointed out we're all biased toward our own POV. The article about the guy that made up the new definition of the word "santorum" seemed to me as if he had written it himself.

"Though Savage encourages sexual experimentation, he does not encourage carelessness. He frequently makes use of his position — that of a columnist with a large and loyal audience — to spread AIDS awareness and to promote safe sex."

To my thinking, the idea that promoting safe sex is a way to paint yourself a goody-good is a stupefied lefty poser meme. So, I can see some bias there, yes.

But I still think it's the best first stop when looking up something noncontroversial, like a medical term or an electrical device or a mountain range or a species of animal. You get a good overview of the topic and some very content-rich related links.

[Arkinsaw]

But I still think it's the best first stop when looking up something noncontroversial, like a medical term or an electrical device or a mountain range or a species of animal. You get a good overview of the topic and some very content-rich related links.

Yeah, I use it to look up stuff on planets or assorted trivia for use in things that don't really have an important requirement for accuracy. As an everyday reference, but not necessarily a highly accurate one. Its good enough for most stuff.

The problem is current events and political items. I wouldn't go to Wikipedia for that any more than I would go to CBS for my news. The problem is that many people do.