Welcome to the hypocritical world of Wikipedia, Tim. I hope that you will take some time to visit the enlightening forum at WikipediaReview.com. There, you will learn of other topics that are simply not allowed to be talked about on Wikipedia, despite reputable sources. Topics like "Carolyn Doran", "Openserving", and "Wikia is a spin-off of Wikipedia". All are subjects banned by the Wikipediots, because they make Jimmy Wales look bad.

The author must be amused to know that many in the U.S. consider the wikipedia to have such a strong *left-wing* bias, that a whole alternative was created: http://www.conservapedia.com/

Yeah, I was going to raise that point myself, Wizofaus.

I'm going to have to disagree with most of this article. I think the administrator was making fair points.

As for the North American point of view, it's interesting that one of the grudges conservapedia holds, is that wikipedia doesn't use the American spelling for many words. (Apparently, if you don't use American spelling, you're a liberal sympathiser... or should that be sympathizer?)

It's a delicate balancing act, and I think wikipedia does it very well. They don't kowtow to the far right, as evidenced by conservapedia, and articles like this, show they're not the lefty conspirators that conservapedia would have you believe.

i think it's a fair cop - "brutal invasion" is clearly a point of view. To be impartial you would surely just say "invasion" and leave out the brutal?

I don't see what you're on about really.

Wikipedia has standards and operates by consensus, what could be more democratic? Adminstrators on wikipedia are no more godlike than users. If you want your interpretation included, couch it in neutral language and use good sources. Most of all, stick around and persuade people they are appropriate.

Otherwise, you make yourself look like another one-eyed leftist defender of totalitarians, too crippled by confirmatory biases to accept that reality is more than support for slogans.

i do wish ozzies would not used the word democratic, when they mean fair, or progressive. democracy isn't necessarily fair, or progressive, it is "the people rule" in classic greek.

it is understandable that ozzies would be vague about this, having no contact with democracy in oz.

americans have less excuse, but the rich rule there like everywhere, and since 'plutocracy' would tip off even the dimmest, they newspeak the word 'democracy' shamelessly.

'information' has long been the mob-handling tool of choice by the political oligarchs and their plutocrat masters. it is vastly cheaper than putting a checkpoint on every street corner, and safer too, since generals are not encouraged to play a 'hands-on' role. any source of information will be subverted by the rich at a big cross-roads like wikipedia. the only cure is to get as many viewpoints as you can, and filter the result through your own experience.