Odd Legal Question

[GethN7]

Wikipedia wipes its own backside with the concept of objectivity and cowers behind what they consider reliable sources for any political topic to pretend otherwise. There is good reason no school worthy of the name will allow you to cite Wikipedia articles as sources for an assignment. The stuff that they haven't politicized is decent enough, but they will bend over backwards to declare sources that make their cause celebres look good as reliable sources and then use that to frame their position on those topics under the false light of objectivity. Their political objectivity on any contemporary topic is worth less than my last bowel movement.

And Brent, thanks for explaining this whole thing in a way where an organized conspiracy makes sense.

That reason is not the biases you say Wikipedia holds.

That reason is the fact that anybody can edit Wikipedia at any time, so it is entirely possible to (re)write an article on whatever your assignment is and then quote it because, well, that's what Wikipedia said at the time, so clearly it's correct and reliable, right?

The fact that Wikipedia demands reliable sources is them doing their job as an encyclopedia. They do not hide behind those sources any more than any other organization dedicated to the accurate recording of information.

Rob, I was not attacking you, I was saying Wikipedia's objectivity on social and political issues is worthless and has been for at least a decade now. They cower behind reliable sources as a shield, and what they consider reliable sources is even more baldly obvious in their political bias. As someone who studies history, they write hagiography for what they like and Two Minutes Hate level things about whatever they don't. Much like the Nazi fanboy we kicked off ATT (since you brought that up), I won't take anyone who says Hitler did nothing wrong seriously, and on political and social commentary on any topic within the last decade or so, Wikipedia is objectively worthless and cannot talk about anything in that regard without trying to frame the argument to suit the views of their editors while they carefully and selectively choose "reliable sources" that agree with them for the fig leaf of objectivity.

Again, this is not an insult to you and was not intended as such. I consider the study of history very important. I'm a devout Christian, but I'll happily admit my faith has a lot of horrific moments in its entire history worthy of shame and I don't shrink from admitting it. I'm a proud American, but our history is streaked in blood and we have disgraces in our national past I have no problem owning up to it because refusal to acknowledge the past without bias means one cannot learn any honest lesson from it. Ergo, anything that purports to profess fact and instead shows naked bias and has the brass to claim otherwise has my disgust due to my love of discerning the truth as divorced from any bias for or against that truth.

Have you considered the possibility that you, in fact, are biased regarding the matters you say Wikipedia is less than objective about?

I plan to bow out of this discussion after this reply, I really do not need to aggravate a stress condition I just had to get a medication increase for recently, so I'll just leave it at this:

Yes, I have examined my biases. Yes, I examined arguments from both sides, if only because political discussion is so polarized these days it's the only I, who simply wants the truth without prejudicial varnish, can seem to figure out what is going on (if I just relied on one side, I'd only get lickspittle for one side and demonization for the other on most topics). And yes, I will happily admit I could be wrong.

With all that said, I stand by my every word, and I will leave my stance at that. Finally, since you posed me a question, I will do the same as my final post here, albeit it's a rhetorical one, so an actual answer is not necessary:

The now late Tom Clancy, while he was a devout Catholic and held many conservative and libertarian views, freely admitted he gave the arguments of his opponents a fair hearing regardless of his own bias because he believed it was ignorant not to do so and in case he was wrong, he wanted to be armed with all the knowledge he could have so he could admit fault and readjust his own stance in case he was in error.

If he could do that, and I'm willing to do the same, does that sound fair for everyone else to do?