Evidence of the strong bias against homeopathy and against an objective encyclopedic tone is evident throughout the article. I will first focus on the second sentence of the first paragraph of the article and the 6 references which purport to substantiate these claims:
Has Jimmy Wales' marauding encyclopedic beast finally corrupted the Internet? Has Wikipedia lost all credibility, its purportedly neutral system compromised by toxic editors? Or have "skeptics" leveled the playing field?
Open Debates will be a game changer in our political process -- ensuring that questions get asked that the public actually cares about. What starts in Massachusetts will hopefully become the norm for local, state, congressional, and even presidential debates in the future.
The Deletionist Wars on Wikipedia make visible the underlying culture wars that impact so many parts of our lives, our laws, our media and the way we think. Technology can't fix us. We have to fix ourselves.
Decisions made by Wikipedia editors are not law. But when it comes to determining what is 'normal' online -- and how much taboo we're willing to stomach on our Internet -- a Wikipedia referendum can count for just as much.
This year, 1.5 million Facebook users will pass away but their Facebook profiles will live on. This is a growing problem and people are naturally asking: can major social media sites handle their dead?