Wikipedia Bias

As a cost-saving measure, BBC Nature (bbc.co.uk/nature) gets its listing pages about different species of animals from Wikipedia. That then forces them to implicitly admit that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source (see excerpts from the BBC FAQ below).

What's BBC's suggested fix for spreading possibly inaccurate information to readers of their site? They suggest that experts go fix Wikipedia.

While this is understandable from a money-saving perspective, the BBC is being penny wise pound foolish: they're staking their reputation on Wikipedia.

One of the reasons why Wikipedia appears at or near the top for most search terms is because people keep linking to them (another reason is almost assuredly due to search engines promoting them to the top).

If you realize why Wikipedia should be opposed, but you still need to point to a WP article on your site, you should never under any circumstances give WP a "regular link".

A "regular link" means something like:

<a href="http://wikipedia...">some Wikipedia article</a>

On June 15, 2011, Thomas James Ball immolated himself in front of the Cheshire County (New Hampshire) Superior Courthouse in a protest over men's rights. A story from the Union Leader is here, and a site constructed about the event is here.

For years, Wikiquote has been smearing Rush Limbaugh by falsely pretending that he said the following (en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh):

You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped last year in Afghanistan and, in order not to raise his value to his captors, the NYT was able to get other news organizations to keep the news secret. Another source that agreed to keep it secret was Wikipedia (link).

Valerie Jarrett is a close advisor to Barack Obama who's now part of his administration. Her Wikipedia entry is miraculously missing any negative information on her, despite a few attempts to put some of it in. The entry also fails to note her role in the alleged attempts by Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich to sell the Senate seat vacated by Obama.

[NOTE: This entry was originally posted as a comment by user Chris Johnson on 08/27/2008. This site has no knowledge of this issue and hasn't verified any of the claims.]

Hare Krishna/ISKCON Domination on Wikipedia Hindu articles

[NOTE: This entry was originally posted as a comment by user chipdouglas on 05/15/2008. This site has no knowledge of Medved except as a NAU denier and hasn't verified any of the claims.]

Specious "Criticism" Sections

Two things:

(1) How does one make their own post? I don't necessarily need to do it myself, but it would be helpful if the following could be addressed:

The three month old NAFTA Superhighway article is very brief and doesn't give an accurate overview of the topic. It doesn't fully address the controversy surrounding the topic, with mostly alternative media sources presenting evidence that it exists (or a larger version is planned) and with the mainstream media presenting cookie cutter articles designed to "debunk" claims made by the alternative media.

The article "Wikipedia's zealots" from Lawrence Solomon of the Financial Post (link) details issues with the WP article about University of California San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes, who wrote a paper claiming that there was wide consensus about global warming. The paper was challenged by UK scientist Benny Peiser: