Pointing out the author's citing of Conservapedia says far more then anything else I could post. If readers have some time to kill go read it, remember to play safe their TARD is strong.

The author should be commended for his scholarship.

His suggestion that Conservapedia be consulted as an alternative to Wikipedia has merit.

That Wikipedia is biassed in favour of man-made global warming and against Christianity, mirrors the bias prevalent in our Left-leaning, supposedly-impartial ABC.

This only really matters if you actually care about the credibility of Wikipedia.

Oh, my mistake, you don't actually care so much as are worried that the people who are neutral and you want to influence might think that Wikipedia is credible.

The reality is that noone really cares about what your Wiki page says about you or the ACL, except the people who edit it, which is probably why the page is in the state is.

So it doesn't actually matter if you are correct or not in your conclusion of bias, but you scored your 'point', eh?

I strongly recommend anyone reading this article take a look at the talk pages of both the ACL and Greens wikipedia articles. For starters, none of the top editors of either page are heavily involved in the other, whereas Mr Miller seems to be implying that this "bias" has intentionally been done by a group of people who are interested in promoting the Grenns and denouncing the ACL: not true, this is two separate articles edited by different people. Secondly the only editor of the ACL article that has been temporarily blocked from editing wikipedia for vandalism is User "Sam56mas". Sam56mas is a pro-ACL editor who has been caught completely removing criticism of the ACL from the ACL article, and has been disciplined by wikipedia administrators accordingly. Funny how Mr Miller didn't mention that isn't it? I guarantee you if a wikipedia editor had of been blocked from editing for trying to make the ACL look bad Mr Miller would have told us all about it.

David F summed up the situation re Wiki - it provides potentially useful resources and links with which to investigate any and every topic.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if, for instance, the "catholic" church and opus dei (etc) have full time operatives that try to manage and censor whatever content is posted on their Wiki entries - censor any perspective and information that quite rightly criticises these outfits, and their totalitarian agendas. Would either of these sites provide any references to the important book by David Yallop titled The Power and the Glory- The Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican? A book which thoroughly deconstruction the pretense that the Vatican is the source of truth and morality in the world, and the only bulwark against the curse/plague of relativism. Or to The Criminal History of the Papacy by Tony Bushby, or The Popes War Against the Church by Matthew Fox?

Curmudgeon writes that Wiki provides a source for promoting "activist" causes - perhaps so.
But what is an "activist" cause? Only those that Curmudgeon disapproves of!
In my opinion the most powerful "activist" source on the planet is the right-wing noise machine, the power of which is described in the book Global Spin by Sharon Beder.

Anyone who proposes that covervapedia provides acurate and useful information or resources for evaluating anything, whatever the topic, is seriously deluded. And in the case of the USA essentially subscribes to the toxic "world"-view described in this essay.

http://tpjmagazine.us/adams29

Or as described in the book by Chris Hedges American Fascists.
Which is also to say that thet are the American equivalent of the taliban and other anti-modern islamic fundamentalists - no fun to be found there!