[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.

[Arkinsaw]

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.

I was there during the horrific, disgusting, debate on the "term" Santorum. The article stated that the term "Santorum" was a word that described a particularly vile sexually explicit thing. They debated this for months. Arguments were made that this term, coined by some two-bit homosexual activist in San Francisco was a valid word of significance.

Some conservative wag came along and made a similar reference about Hillary Clinton and it was deleted forthwith without argument. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Similarly, the word Islamofascism was debated for ages. Liberals screaming and yelling that it was just a FOX News creation, a non-word made up by conservatives and deserved no place in an encyclopedia despite thousands of Google hits on the word.

So "Santorum" made up by some two-bit activist is a real word of significance, but "Islamofascism" used on major news networks and by pundits and with thousands of Google hits was "not a real word".

No, no liberal bias.