Wikipedia = Fake News
We all go to Wikipedia to look up information on a myriad of subjects. Often times, it provides many good links to actual original articles, books and studies that cover the issue. But on any issue that is the least bit controversial, it aggressively pushes whatever the leftwing mantra of the day is. It also routinely defames anyone it disagrees with, a lot like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which I suspect has many "fact" checkers among the editors. I have written extensively about the SPLC and its Communist roots. Probably the best of these is, Southern Poverty Law Center: Institution of Weaponized Hate. I suggest you read it. It explains where the whole "hate" narrative came from. In a word: Vladimir Lenin.
I signed up to be a Wikipedia editor some time ago because I saw so much misinformation, lies and smears about individuals and organizations I know well. I would enter the change based on FACTS, and within seconds, those facts were deleted and replaced with the original language. Just to experiment I entered the FACTS again, and within seconds it changed back. Tried this about six times and then Wikipedia stopped me from further edits. I forget what the message was, but it was like the kind you get when you forget your password and after so many attempts you are temporarily banned from signing in. Most, if not all, of the Wikipedia editors are leftists, and many of them are no doubt paid to constantly surveil and delete any message they don't like. Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, recently confirmed what most of us already knew, in a blog post titled, "Wikipedia is Badly Biased."
Sanger says that Wikipedia's NPOV (neutral point of view), is essentially dead. For your edification, here is the original policy, which he helped write:
A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.
Sounds reasonable, no? But Wikipedia has long since abandoned that position, written decades ago. No principled writer, like myself, ever cities Wikipedia as a source for anything anymore, because it is simply not credible. This is a sad statement on the condition of our First Amendment, which the Left has deliberately sought to undermine and savage for decades. They have been so successful that young students these days believe that some voices should be silenced. Such a result will be the death of our nation. It is one of the big reasons I was compelled to run for Congress. This deliberate sabotage of our constitutional rights HAS to be stopped while we still have the power to stop it. Consider this when you are filling out your ballots for Maryland District 2.