View Single Post
Old 03-09-2009, 07:29 PM   #18
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Well actually there is, it adds to the growing concern about the mainstream media being ran by Obama's Chief of Staff. Additionally, if wikipedia is a nonprofit they can get in serious trouble from a legal standpoint, furthermore they could potentially get in trouble for false advertising.
No, they cannot get in trouble. There are no laws requiring you to be unbiased online.

And no, they are not falsely advertising because they are not selling anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Seriously, they advertise as trying their best to keep it unbiased, but they deliberately do things to support the Democrats, that's false advertising. Furthermore, they've also lost credibility to many people.
What people? How many people honestly take wikipedia as pure fact?

That seems like a problem with the ignorance of the people instead of the bias of wikipedia. You aren't helping, however, by pinning this solely on democrats.

Again, it is not their ethical, moral, political, etc responsibility to be unbiased. Wikipedia is by definition a biased source and should be treated as such.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,