Changes

#  The Wikipedia entry for [[John Peter Zenger]] links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer", which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law."  Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later.  Wikipedia is simply unreliable.  

#  The Wikipedia entry for [[John Peter Zenger]] links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer", which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law."  Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later.  Wikipedia is simply unreliable.  

#  Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail.  Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omits any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World!  

#  Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail.  Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omits any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World!  

#  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

#  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

#:The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this:  "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."  

#:The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this:  "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."  

#  Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.

#  Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.