Don't Trust Wikipedia

[Birka]

Here is an article about how the editors who run Wikipedia scrub all the negative posts/additions about der Ombongo. Aren't they supposed to leave in all comments? F*@king liberals.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

[Beorn]

Wikipedia sucks fat ones!

Wikipedia is a great referencing tool, but when people start flashing it in your face as "actual proof" in an argument, it does get annoying to have to explain that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information and that they really should read the sources links before basing their whole arguments on it.

Obama supporters will never allow such nasty history sully his pristine image.
Wikipedia would be no different.

[SwordoftheVistula]

It's a good resource, except on hotly contested political issues.

[Ulf]

Wikipedia is only as good as its sources.

[Loyalist]

Here's a similar pro-Obama Wikipedia controversey featured on Fox News today:

Obama's Wikipedia Page Distances President From Wright and Ayers

What a tangled Web Wikipedia users can weave.

Critics noted over the weekend that President Obama's page on the free online encyclopedia had been edited to remove any mention of his links to former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, and to allow only a brief citation of his connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — though pages for Ayers and Wright are heavily peppered with references to the president, including subsections on both pages that detail their past affiliations with him.

The lone mention of Wright on Obama's page appears in a section on his family and personal life; it says the president left Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ in May 2008 after "controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public," citing an Associated Press article. (Continues)

Source

Personally, I've been given two temporary bans at Wikipedia. The first was for the article on MoveOn.org, a far-left pressure group. The article states the organization was vital to the Democratic victory in the 2006 Congressional election. When I added sourced approval ratings for that same Democratic Congress and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (the lowest in history), a Wikipedia administator, whose user page showed him to be a registered Democrat and member of MoveOn.org, removed them. I put it back up, and the same individual removed it again and gave me a temporary ban.

The second time, I repeatedly changed the name of "Derry" to "Londonderry" in some articles pertaining to politicians in Northern Ireland. The changes were constantly reverted by an admin who subsequently gave me a two day ban. His username is "O Fenian".

[Brynhild]

Wikipedia is normally the first point of reference, but not the last by any means. I've seen plenty of bias depending on the article I'm reading and I like to look for corroberation in other articles.

[Birka]

Obama supporters will never allow such nasty history sully his pristine image.
Wikipedia would be no different.

It would then seem that Ombongo supporters and Wikipedia are one and the same. I have also been told that Snopes are very liberal in their opinions.

[Beorn]

I have also been told that Snopes are very liberal in their opinions.

I wouldn't bat an eyelid if it came out they were on Ombongo's payroll.

[Psychonaut]

Wikipedia is only as good as its sources.

That's the key right there. Wiki can be a great tool for finding sources, but is, in and of itself, not a valid source.

[Absinthe]

I refer to Wiki for stuff such as:

Plants, medical terms, scientific terms, technical terms

Linguistics and facts about languages (although Omniglot is probably the best source)

Ancestry of famous people (e.g. actors), since Wiki is among the very few sources that breaks down Colonial nationality into the original ancestries of a person

Just about everything light & silly

...etc.

Not the place I would trust for a serious reference or an objective opinion concerning certain "sensitive" matters...