My understanding of " Wikipedia " , is that anyone can post there , and anyone can correct a post , if they don't agree with it. I don't see how that could be considered a reliable reference point for important research. ( please correct me if I'm wrong ) and who owns / controls the site , and what side of the aisle do they sit on ? ...... just asking.
Well that was completely true about 6 years ago. It all hit the fan when someone was able to "insert" his co-worker into the conspiracy of the kennedy assasination. Now basically anychanges need to be "approved" by wikipedia's core group.
Now...do I agree with everything that they print..no, because it is changable. Do I like that article...yes...because of its resource material. Unfortunately...history is written by the winners.
The reason why I had posted that bit about benghazi is due to its reference sources (That way you can prove its accuracy). I replied to dave, because he said that the article (wikipedia, after he read the article) was well balanced. I reminded him that what I posted was from wikipedia (so its well balanced) and it showed a liberal bias in the media, so in fact since he agrees with the article, then he would agree with a liberal bias in the media on the benghazi incident.
Last edited: