Larry Sanger is not exactly a neutral source on wikipedia. He is behind multiple competing projects, so might be financially motivated to shit-talk wikipedia.
Trying to change the subject to Larry Sanger is an ad hominem fallacy. Address the content of the message, not the speaker.
For example, is this accurate or isn't it?
>Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. Beyond that, a neutral article must fairly represent competing views on the figure by the major parties.
And if so, then wikipedia is indeed badly biased. Whether or not Larry Sanger is isn't that interesting. But a bias at wikipedia - a source blindly trusted by millions - is a very interesting and concerning state of affairs.
> Trying to change the subject to Larry Sanger is an ad hominem fallacy. Address the content of the message, not the speaker.
I disagree. This thread started with "By cofounder Larry Sanger" - so the argument started with an implication that larry sangar should be listened to due to who he is. You can't both claim his argument holds extra weight due to who he is well also claiming its irrelavent who he is. You have to pick one.
As far as the obama article goes - im not an american and i havent heard of those scandals before, so honestly i dont know if their ommision is appropriate or not (it should be noted that libyan intervention is mentioned in his article).
However, i think this is asking the wrong question. Nothing is 100% neutral. I don't doubt you can find biased things in wikipedia. It is made by humans not revealed through divine revelation. The important question in my mind is how does it stack up against other sources. Is it mostly neutral relative to other information sources? That's how i would like to judge it.
