Wikipedia's page for liberalism: Neutral, or not?

[TXlib]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

At the top of the page, there is a warning that the neutrality of the article is disputed.

That's great, that Wikipedia allows a mechanism to warn readers that some think the info is biased, but I read the article (well, OK, skimmed), and I didn't see anything that jumped out at me as particularly biased.

What do you think?

[sniffa]

1. i dunno

what does CU have to say about it?

[TXlib]

6. I didn't ask them.

I'm on a 2-day time out there...

[daydreamer]

2. For Freepers, "neutral" means "biased"

Black means white.

[TXlib]

7. So, who do you think is disputing its neutrality?

Liberals or conservatives?

[fudge stripe cookays]

3. Hmmmm...

While the so-called "liberal consensus" was dealt a death-blow by the victory of Ronald Reagan...

Death blow? Come on. We're still here.

[TXlib]

8. Perhaps, but not in power.

[ghostsofgiants]

4. I think the neutrality warnings are based on...

What's happening on the discussion page. If there's dispute there, they'll put up a warning.

[fudge stripe cookays]

10. And there's a bunch of that,

for sure.

And getting pretty snarky in places.
FSC

[Kraklen]

5. There's about three lines on civil rights, lol.

And they emphasis how relations with liberals and civil rights activists were "strained."

:eyes:

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

9. That's why I don't consider Wikipedia to be a completely credible source.

:shrug:

[TXlib]

11. On political matter, perhaps

but I've found wikipedia to be great for any pure fact-based area of interest. I have yet to find any physics-related page that has obvious errors, or that seems incomplete.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

12. That's what I meant. I should have clarified my comment.

Several times people will quote something from Wikipedia for an argument on this board that has to do with politics, and then I look at the article and note some curious biases.
As for other fields of interest, like your example of physics, I find them to be correct.

[durutti]

13. Wikipedia is 1.) not credible and 2.) not neutral.

Since anyone can post anything on Wikipedia, many articles are inaccurate and biased, and aren't always labeled as such. This is especially true when it comes to issues that are very controversial and also when cliques of true believers devote themselves to perpetuating their point of view.

There are numerous such cliques on Wikipedia, and many administrators are sympathetic to them. There are far, far more right-wing administrators than left-wing or liberal. And they ultimately answer to the founder and effective owner of a Wikipedia, an Ayn Rand admiring millionaire.

Wikipedia is often a good starting point, but nothing more. Take anything read on it with plenty of salt.