Should Islam be banned?

[Rob]

States, one article contained leftist sentiments. So the entire thing is leftist? Do you seriously think that, other than containing more international members, Wikipedia is heavily biased?

Their entry on Black Hawk Down is definitely slanted, and it has some material that was copied from a socialist website that they link to.

[Emsworth]

States, one article contained leftist sentiments. So the entire thing is leftist? Do you seriously think that, other than containing more international members, Wikipedia is heavily biased? That is, by the way, what the Wikipedia system is made for - you can complain about slants in an article and it will be addressed.

Unfortunately, I know that it does not work in many cases. A majority of articles on controversial political topics are terrible.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well that just means whoever edited last was leftist. It's pretty ridiculous to claim something as expansive as wikipedia that anyone can edit is always leftist-biased.

[A18]

I've noticed a few little things on Wikipedia that indicate some of the writers have a leftist slant.

For example, they don't adjust deficits for inflation, much less size of the economy, in the Bill Clinton article. That, and they call the period he presided over the "lengthiest economic boom in American history," which by any objective measure is false.

The GWB article used to be painfully biased too, but they fixed it. I think on the whole it's a pretty good site, however.

[Emsworth]

I've noticed a few little things on Wikipedia that indicate some of the writers have a leftist slant.

I would venture so far as to say that most of the writers who are slanted are slanted to the left.

[PADem]

Well I personally have no time for religion of any kind.
So if you ask me go ahead, and while your at it ban Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism and any other religion you feel like.

[Gabu]

I've noticed a few little things on Wikipedia that indicate some of the writers have a leftist slant.

For example, they don't adjust deficits for inflation, much less size of the economy, in the Bill Clinton article. That, and they call the period he presided over the "lengthiest economic boom in American history," which by any objective measure is false.

The GWB article used to be painfully biased too, but they fixed it. I think on the whole it's a pretty good site, however.

It can be a little, well, bad if you're looking for a purely objective look on hot topics (one of which being politicians and what they did).  I've never personally used it for that purpose, though, and if you're looking for information on non-hot topics, Wikipedia is pretty well unparalleled on the Internet as a source for information on whatever it is you want.

[??????????]

I've noticed a few little things on Wikipedia that indicate some of the writers have a leftist slant.

For example, they don't adjust deficits for inflation, much less size of the economy, in the Bill Clinton article. That, and they call the period he presided over the "lengthiest economic boom in American history," which by any objective measure is false.

The GWB article used to be painfully biased too, but they fixed it. I think on the whole it's a pretty good site, however.

It can be a little, well, bad if you're looking for a purely objective look on hot topics (one of which being politicians and what they did).  I've never personally used it for that purpose, though, and if you're looking for information on non-hot topics, Wikipedia is pretty well unparalleled on the Internet as a source for information on whatever it is you want.

I certainly wouldn't depend to much on Wikipedia if I was doing a school research report or some kind of project.

[Gabu]

I've noticed a few little things on Wikipedia that indicate some of the writers have a leftist slant.

For example, they don't adjust deficits for inflation, much less size of the economy, in the Bill Clinton article. That, and they call the period he presided over the "lengthiest economic boom in American history," which by any objective measure is false.

The GWB article used to be painfully biased too, but they fixed it. I think on the whole it's a pretty good site, however.

It can be a little, well, bad if you're looking for a purely objective look on hot topics (one of which being politicians and what they did).  I've never personally used it for that purpose, though, and if you're looking for information on non-hot topics, Wikipedia is pretty well unparalleled on the Internet as a source for information on whatever it is you want.

I certainly wouldn't depend to much on Wikipedia if I was doing a school research report or some kind of project.

You may want corroborating sources if you need to be absolutely sure of something, but I can't count the number of times I've wanted a random piece of information and was able to find it on Wikipedia.