With regard to 'global warming', Wikipedia's pro-AGW bias is well known and has led to editors being sacked or suspended -- notably William Connolley, who has 'contributed' -- if that's the word -- to several thousand articles relating to AGW. Unfortunately Connolley has now been reinstated and the bias continues.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/another-wikipedia-editor-has-been-climate-topic-banned/

Wikipedia amounts to history being rewritten by the mob. When there are strong motivations for bias it is of very little value.

Although I support the Greens I agree with the author. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. However, it points one to source documents. If one really wants to know about a particular area one should check the documents Wikipedia cites and look for other non-cited documents on the same subject.

The problem with John Miller's argument is it uses democracy as the yardstick of balance, as if entries should reflect popular concensus on the respective topic. If Wikipedia was to be truly democratic it would report AGW denialism as legitimate, though it flies in the face of scientific consensus. Racist and sexist sites too could demand equal space and positive spin, or they could insist that an anti-racist agenda is anti-white. The ACL position on various issues is based on antedeluvian subscription to literal readings of ancient, foreign texts; the ACL position on abortion, for instance, is incongruous on an over-populated planet, and when large families often reflect disadvantage. The ACL position on school chaplains is incongruous with the idea of "education" and an affront to progressive sensibilities. How are editors to ignore the various negative social impacts that backward religious conservatism propagates? It was recently revealed in the census that religious-conservatives are more likely to be minimifidianists (surprise surprise).
I would argue that modern rationalism precludes too much, but the simple fact of the matter is the ACL is at odds with general trends and ideology and can't expect to hide behind democratic populism. There's much to criticise about democratic rule in any case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy

Like the Greens or not, their position is scientifically and ethically defensible, the ACL's is not and Wikipedia reflects that.

The author says

"through our democratic processes, the Australian nation is poised to formally ratify ACL's position on marriage."

This is nonsense. The ACL's position is clearly that homosexuality is, to a Christian, more important than other issues such as (for example) war and peace, caring for the poor, refugees, and, more weirdly, even other sexual-moral issues such as adultery/divorce.

I can't see how you get their outlook from reading the Bible, and, more to the point, what's likely to happen in Australia's democratic processes can't be said to endorse their view.

So many people damn Wikipedia because it has many angles. Yet it is a huge and democratic human construct that frustrates those who would wish for comfortable pre-internet order.

Given Wikipedia would run to as many pages as a large city library it often seems critics criticise the whole of Wikipedia on the basis of isolated articles they disagree with their views. Or they can find factual inaccuracies that are as frequently found in printed books.

Is it possible that conservative scholars believe in hard copy books because books have a traditional and physical nature?

In contrast Wikipedia is more readily available for public scrutiny and revised as new attitudes towards (socalled) facts emerge?

A belief in the efficacy of hardcopy over Wikipedia is tantamount to belief that the Bible is the literal work of a God.

Planta
(a sceptical agnostic somewhere between the Greens and the National Party)

plantagenet and Squeers

Fellas, look, go back and read the article. You've allowed yourself to get caught up in defending particular issues. Miller article clearly shows that the Wiki editors adopted quite different approaches in what was or was not permitted on different sites, and never mind the details of the individual arguements.

Wikipedia has long been known to be biased in favour of activists causes - global warming and so on - and cannot be relied on for information in such areas. But it is good for links, and for history and science.. stuff where there is no reason for activists to write their version..

Squeers - your claim about AGWs stance on global warming being indefensible is wrong. What you mean to say is that it is clearly against the scientific consensus, which is correct. That consensus, especially when it comes to the temperature projections, has yet to be shown to be valid.