Changes

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.  

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.  

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like

::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."

::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."

:and

:and

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.  

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.  

For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

For example, if someone goes to the article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.