Wikipropaganda
Wikipedia, the most often referenced encyclopedia in
the world, is both a fantastic source of information
and a swamp of liberal bias.
I have looked up all sorts of subjects on Wikipedia, with generally good and informative results. I consider it to be a valuable resource, however it is terribly, terribly flawed when it comes to any subject that is the least bit political.
Most people, I would wager, don't realize anybody can edit a wikipedia entry on, say, President Bush or global warming. They also don't realize there are favored people with great authority who can cancel out those edits on a whim. And those people are, seemingly without exception, liberals. They strongly enforce the liberal world-view in Wikipedia, ignoring their own guidelines.
The chief editor is William Connolley, who is an office-seeking member of England's Green Party. If that doesn’t get your attention, nothing will.
Lawerence Solomon wrote a piece for National Review Online that summarizes the unfortunate situation.
So, the next time your child's teacher suggests using Wikipedia as a reference, pay attention to the subject matter. The life-cycle of the butterfly? Fine. The history of farming? Wonderful. Global warming or the Iraq war? No way. I have come to learn when I can rely on Wikipedia and when I can't. I'm not confident that the average teacher, parent, or student has learned the same lesson.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has such a large mind-share (a internet-style monopoly, much as Google has among search engines), that it's hard to see how the situation can be corrected. Yes, there is a Conservapedia, but not only is it tiny by comparison, it also swings too far to the right. Encyclopedia.com seems be more of link factory to other informational sources. Microsoft's Encarta might be worth a good look.
By far the most interesting alternative to the Wikipedia hegemony, that I know of, is the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is very comprehensive, but it costs $70 a year. I don't know if Britannica displays a liberal bias or not, but they certainly have a strong record as a serious provider of information.
As my kids get a little older and start to write reports and need a reliable encyclopedia, I will steer them away from Wikipedia. I may take the plunge on a subscription to Britannica. $70 a year might be money well spent.
I have looked up all sorts of subjects on Wikipedia, with generally good and informative results. I consider it to be a valuable resource, however it is terribly, terribly flawed when it comes to any subject that is the least bit political.
Most people, I would wager, don't realize anybody can edit a wikipedia entry on, say, President Bush or global warming. They also don't realize there are favored people with great authority who can cancel out those edits on a whim. And those people are, seemingly without exception, liberals. They strongly enforce the liberal world-view in Wikipedia, ignoring their own guidelines.
The chief editor is William Connolley, who is an office-seeking member of England's Green Party. If that doesn’t get your attention, nothing will.
Lawerence Solomon wrote a piece for National Review Online that summarizes the unfortunate situation.
So, the next time your child's teacher suggests using Wikipedia as a reference, pay attention to the subject matter. The life-cycle of the butterfly? Fine. The history of farming? Wonderful. Global warming or the Iraq war? No way. I have come to learn when I can rely on Wikipedia and when I can't. I'm not confident that the average teacher, parent, or student has learned the same lesson.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has such a large mind-share (a internet-style monopoly, much as Google has among search engines), that it's hard to see how the situation can be corrected. Yes, there is a Conservapedia, but not only is it tiny by comparison, it also swings too far to the right. Encyclopedia.com seems be more of link factory to other informational sources. Microsoft's Encarta might be worth a good look.
By far the most interesting alternative to the Wikipedia hegemony, that I know of, is the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is very comprehensive, but it costs $70 a year. I don't know if Britannica displays a liberal bias or not, but they certainly have a strong record as a serious provider of information.
As my kids get a little older and start to write reports and need a reliable encyclopedia, I will steer them away from Wikipedia. I may take the plunge on a subscription to Britannica. $70 a year might be money well spent.