LD, re Wiki: I don't think it's as much a case of wiki being "biased" as it is of peer review . . . or a lack thereof. Sometimes wiki will even include a couple lines that the article in question is in need of further review. And sometimes people do inject their politics into wiki articles. From what I've seen, from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

Used to be, back in the old stubby pencil/green eyeshade days of research, everyone started with Britannica. That was pretty much the gold standard. Of course outdated in today's world of instant information. But instant information is often inaccurate information, because some people are either more interested in being first, or else are more interested in injecting their opinion, than they are in the facts. "Just the facts," as SGT Friday used to say. Makes things more complicated.

Examples (but not from Wiki): I recently read about sharia in Dearborn, MI. Turns out that notion got started as a result of an article in a satirical publication. (Another article in the same publication had to do with a "boobs merit badge" for the Boy Scouts. I think you get the drift.) But those who wanted to believe there was sharia in Dearborn latched onto the satire as if it were fact.

Then there was an article about a pro-ISIS rally last December . . . except it turned out to have been an ANTI-ISIS rally, in fact. If someone had looked at the photo of people at the rally holding up a sign that said "99% of ISIS victims are Muslims!", they might have guessed it was not pro-ISIS.

The Internet can lead one down tricky paths if one is in search of facts.

Last edited by L. Brown; 06/02/16 03:53 PM.