What are your thoughts on Wikipedia? Is it largely biased?

>>131329348
>kikepedia

ftfy goy

I worked there. They're as biased as any other operation run out of San Francisco. Maybe more so because of the non-profit angle. WMF as policy doesn't interject on article editing, but most of the people who work there are also very involved with editing and moderating privately, and they have extreme liberal bias. The people most involved with moderation and shit don't get paid by them but are mostly 50 year old extremely liberal childless librarians and such.

notice how every white-on-minority crime gets an article. The opposite not

1) yes
2) depends. It's like a cheap and badly cooked burger. Sometimes it's enough, but it's no gourmet steak and in the long run will make you fat and lazy.

File: 1498140604782.jpg (54KB, 480x696px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 480x696px

>>131329348

>>131329348
Everything on there is sourced to books written by experts, you can't just create an account and start shitposting history. The only reason teachers would never let you use it was because it was so easy and useful and school is supposed to be futile bullshit

>>131329348
Bump