I heartily second this… As you can certainly tell from the front page at Conservapedia, THEY certainly have no political axes to grind. Every word there is blissfully free of political bias… /s
The comment above by Anna is on the mark. If you really want to understand the decision-making system at Wikipedia, its utility and its flaws, its strengths and its weaknesses, that information is there for the discovery. Start by trying to understand the concept of “Neutral Point of View” and then maybe the shallowness of complaints like “every time I try to insert criticism of Obama, no matter where I put it, it gets reverted” or “every time I insert ‘…and mass murderer’ next to Che Guevarra’s name, it disappears,” will start to become obvious… If you go into Wikipedia trying to score cheap political points on the other “team,” you’re not grasping the point of the exercise. If you dive into a hot-topic issue trying to score cheap political points, left or right, you won’t.
Conservatives seeking an alternative venue for tendentious writing: please, do investigate Conservapedia. It’s there for you.
The fact is that there are smart conservatives and smart liberals and smart radicals and a big majority of people who don’t care a whit about politics co-existing on Wikipedia. We’ve all got our little missions and we’re doing our best. There is more than ample room for criticism, mistakes made. My own view is that there is inadequate attention to “veracity” and an excessive compulsion with the notions of “notability” and “reliability.” I also have faith in the future. Do remember, this is a project in its infancy.
