I really only first found out about this bias when I stumbled upon http://www.conservapedia.com/ on 2007-12-30 16:00. Sure, I had noticed a slight liberal bias in some articles, but I guess I hadn't thought much of it at the time -- I probably assumed it was a fairly isolated incident; I didn't suspect that that was a general phenomenon.
In fact, I had been impressed in several occasions at how many articles seek to give a "neutral point of view" and where that's not possible, they list and describe all of the major competing viewpoints.
But... the truth?
Now I'm hopping mad about it. Here's this huge, huge, almost universally trusted and depended-upon education tool -- I mean who hasn't gone to Wikipedia to look up something these days? Its earned a very respected reputation as being a good (authoritative??) source of information about a wide range of topics.
[And there's the rub.] Those who use it -- most of us, probably? -- assume it is objective/neutral (because encyclopedias are supposed to be, right?)
hadn't thought hard enough about censored only one viewpoint can win
mixed in with all the neutral, good stuff undeniable too late -- can't separate it out now any attempt to change what's there will be taken as an attack (against status quo) -- just because liberals got in there and created the content first from their viewpoint. Yet another example of [first-comer wins (category)].
Also yet another example of the dangers of having the media (...) controlled by big organizations. (media consolidation?)
I/we were suckered into liking it / contributing to it because it claimed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit while that's true to some extent, there have been many cases where people are not free to edit semi-protected pages reverting changes they don't agree with Ultimately, the owners of the site (Wikimedia) are the ones who can control what stays in and what is left out / removed the idea that anyone is free to edit sounds nice ... but if only it were that simple and that true
at least the edits are transparent (but with sockpuppet accounts and such...)
unstoppable now? sister sites Wikimedia
what now? boycott, compete help to correct mistakes and omissions -- daunting task, with opposition