This is probably the best part of the site.
# Wikipedia cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about Conservapedia claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy," but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
Sorry, they'd have cited "reality," but you can't exactly link to that.
The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).
Because this is the Internet, he's not a captain, and his name isn't James T. That's nerd bias, not liberal bias.
Wikipedia's entry on conservative the Ronpaul smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!
Look, if the Ronpaul can't control the series of tubes, then he's already doomed.
Wikipedia promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the sanctity of life).
They must really fucking hate the Norton Anthology of American Literature. It's just a long list of people who offed themselves, though, Hemingway, that man did it with talent.
In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth. Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus." But no credible historian makes such a claim.
Wait, so that was a mythical Berkley Professor with multiple publications in academic journals that I carried out of a bar the other week? Just saying, they kind of do exist. In fact, the entire argument is based off the Bible and an interesting disconnect from Jesus to what went on after he was "whacked."
For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.
And then, along came Stewart.
Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
Hum, maybe because the NSDAP was a political party exclusive to Germany, whereas genocides in communist countries would be better served in articles of the specific regimes rather than the entire broad spectrum. But you know, reading through a lot of their bias, you kind of get the sense that they don't care how far to the right a group was, they'll defend it if it'll help them show any small amount of perceived liberal bias.
Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.
I think they just dissed Mario.
One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an American flag desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
Well I'm sure England and the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET are glad you didn't even notice them.
Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists. In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive. Wikipedia's article on atheism also fails to mention that Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress. In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that atheism is a causal factor for suicide.
And this just pisses me off to no end. Especially since the entire first part is the exact kind of shit that is actually responsible for the later part. Maybe they might figure out that constantly treating a group of people as subhuman, traitors, defective, injured people, who have no right to live actually causes mental harm. Of course, that might require them to realize that right-wing evangelical Christian is not a species description.
I'm a little sad that they got rid of their circle logic proof of wikipedia bias. That always amused me.
@The Reaper: And the NAZIS were actually National Socialists. It's a strangely labeled world indeed. Which is why I think everybody should get new titles, specifically: the Happy and Glorious Servants of His Most Honored, Always Correct, and Ultimately Awesome Jahoclave. Look, if I'm creating the title, that's how it's going to work. I mean, it's just an option, I'm not saying you have to go with it, but I'm highly suggesting it.
@Glau: Don't feel bad, we don't mock the whole lot of you for these sorts of things. Still, they can be quite hilarious until you realize these people actually form a voting block and politicians listen to them.