In 2004, I was involved in the activities of Vietnam vets against Kerry. I once edited a page and gave as a reference a well sourced book on the subject. The edit was removed, with the editor stating “the book probably doesn’t even exist” – even though it was available on Amazon.
The Wiki articles on the Kerry v Swiftboat controversy are a fine study in propaganda. Although they facts are not too badly cherry picked, the framing of issues and the phrasing and adjective choices give a strong and clear message that the Swiftboaters were a bunch of partisan hacks and Kerry was a great guy. Based on my personal experience with the former, and research on the latter, this narrative is utterly wrong, but typical of Wikipedia’s bias.
Also compare the treatment of Kerry and G W Bush. Same sort of slant.
Global warming is another area where Wikipedia has a strong tilt. Reportedly, there is an editor who will take out evidence contrary to the AGW orthodoxy within minutes of when they are put in.
I have had edits rejected because the sourcing was my own experience. Apparently a reporter’s filtered, often biased and certainly second or third hand information is always ranked higher (it has, after all, a real cite one can use) than direct personal observation.
Wikipedia is useful, but like so many community purposed organizations, it is plagued with leftists, who always seem to have more time than their opponents to do battle in information warfare.
Remember O’Sullivan’s first law: ”’All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”’
