Congress has lost its mind...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

- whether you chose to believe this source or not

I do not. Wiki should not be trusted but for only the basic and benign facts that are completely accepted by all. Frank was a sexual predator and the Dems gave him a pass. Good ridden's to the MoFo.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I do not. Wiki should not be trusted but for only the basic and benign facts that are completely accepted by all. Frank was a sexual predator and the Dems gave him a pass. Good ridden's to the MoFo.

And that's a perfectly good justification for why your character assassination isn't listed in Wikipedia. Such a statement is not basic, not benign, and not accepted by all. You make his point.

I wonder if you have other sources to back up your claim. Do you?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

And that's a perfectly good justification for why your character assassination isn't listed in Wikipedia. Such a statement is not basic, not benign, and not accepted by all. You make his point.

I wonder if you have other sources to back up your claim. Do you?

People like that fool have legions of followers who manipulate Wiki entries for the very purpose of ensuring the message it delivers. Ask UT about his experience with it. When it comes to controversial statements or one that may cast a high profile person, no less a sitting Congressman, I don't think anything you put up that would be slightly negative would last but a few hours.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I do not. Wiki should not be trusted but for only the basic and benign facts that are completely accepted by all. Frank was a sexual predator and the Dems gave him a pass. Good ridden's to the MoFo.

From Wikipedia's 'What Wikipedia is Not' page:

Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

It seems a little unfair to say that wikipedia 'cannot be trusted' for things that aren't 'basic benign facts that are completely accepted by all' when that is its stated remit. Perhaps better to say that Wikipedia is not there to provide anything but the basic facts as accepted by all, and cannot speak to matters beyond that.