I've been Wikipedia quite a bit even though I know inaccurate info can be quite apparent or just half-truths and inadequate info especially for political topics. I would never use it for a formal college report or a reference site for my views in a serious discussion but it can be useful for finding more professional sources of info since the site sometimes lists external sources.

It also tends to be fairly accurate for technical info as someone already stated. My gripes with the site other than what I already stated include how spoilers for movies and games are sometimes shown right in the beginning of the article. Sure they put a warning but the spoilers are still right there in the open so I can never look up a game or movie on Wikipedia until I've actually played through or watched it. The other gripe (if you can call it that) is that it is so addictive. I could get easily sidetracked with all the info you can click on.

It was an implication that anyone who embraces center-right politics is automatically out of touch with reality as if everyone who embracing left wing politics is automatically right, reasonable, or perfect. My personal experiences and understandings say differently.

Ben Schumin strikes again.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/02/old-man-murray-deleted-from-wikipedia/#more-52845

What a pathetic troll that man is. And the fact that someone like this has so much power says a lot about the flaws of Wikipedia.

This is him, BTW: http://www.schuminweb.com/

conservapedia is hardly center right ... it's right of right. Aliasalpha when he/she said this: was rightly making fun of creating an entire encyclopedia, not just something about politics but everything, with the view that it should have a conservative viewpoint. It's actually as though they, the creators of conservapedia, are saying reality is biased liberally so we'll write our own version of it. And no, not all liberals are sane are either, but seriously, you're defending the indefensible. Simply because something labels itself as conservative or liberal doesn't mean you should defend or attack it. For instance I despise MSNBC and Fox. I'll grant you that I despise Fox more, but I'm not going to defend MSNBC either. To do otherwise would just be tribalism.

P.S. What's with the rattlesnake icons you conservatives are using these days?

I use Uncyclopedia the most, indeed....

*just joking....*

I used to use Wikipedia a lot when I was bored and wanted to read about games or anime and the reception and such it might have got.

I think it's absolute BS that they're now deleting pages that aren't considered "notable". I'm sorry but that's a complete joke. Notability is completely subjective and allowing so called "admins" to deem what is and isn't notable is ridiculous. I'll definitely be using the site less and less, my obscure taste in certain things might not be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page anymore.

"Don't tread on me"

Very true, to be fair, not everyone who likes guns falls into the other two categories, though. The not caring about people and not wanting to pay taxes seem to go hand in hand, though. I use it, but never contribute anything back, because it's run by jerks and why go to the effort to get my contribution deleted. I don't expect they'll see a 20th birthday as they make it less useful to the crowd that actually uses it.

Well, it used to be a Marine Corps flag, but yeah, Libertarians are pro gun rights. They are not the only ones, though. I know why Libertarians think the way they do, it makes sense, but only if their understanding on how the world works is accurate. Sadly, it's based on how they think the world should work, not on how it really works (e.g. the perfectly informed public and consumer).

You two crack me up.

Libertarians care enough about other people that they want all of us to have the opportunity to make our own way in life, with as little outside intrusion as possible.

Guns? I firmly believe in 2nd Amendment rights for responsible owners. I own zero firearms. Never have and likely never will.

We pay our taxes. We don't like it when that money is used poorly or to take away basic rights, and we're not afraid to speak up about it. If enough money is being collected that our leaders can manage to use it in bad ways, then there is enough to start using it wisely and return the rest to those who pay the taxes.

Orcish, still wondering when you're going to voluntarily pay more taxes since you've said previously that it's a good idea and that you're financially able to do so. Funny how you say it's very true that Libertarians are selfish while at the same time you're declining the opportunity to pay more tax. How about you, Rager? Care to spend less on GOGs and maybe add an extra $20 to your tax burden? Goodness knows we have 537 elected clowns and umpteen "czars" in DC already thinking up creative and stupid new ways to waste it...

<sigh>

No, I said it's a good idea for everyone to pay more taxes, not just me, just me doing it will do shit all to fix anything. I said the exact same thing the last time you made the exact, same, snide comment. I'll say it the next time, if you'd like to save yourself the useless exchange. However, when I say raise taxes for wealthy people, I'm generally included in that category, and I have no problem being included in general tax hike. I already don't get most credits that the majority of citizens have and still end up better at the end of the year.

I know why you think letting everyone make their own way is great. It's a belief (really more of a desire) I once held. However, I've realized as I've grown older and seen more shit that it just doesn't work in the real world. It's fantasy. Most libertarians do well for themselves and in many cases are well above average; sadly they are remarkably unconcerned with those who are not well above average or just have rotten luck.

I know you think letting everyone sink or swim on their own sounds like you're giving them some great gift, but you're not, you're being callous and, as I see it, selfish. I assure you, you make think life is well under control, and that you've planned for all contingencies, etc., etc., I assure you, this is a delusion. Nothing may ever happen to you personally, but stuff does happen, even to people like you.

And let me just say this, Libertarianism doesn't work, but if it did, and IT DOES NOT WORK, but even if it did, and it doesn't, but even if it did: something that only a small percentage of the population will be successful at is actually a failure. Scratch that, it's a colossal failure.

Around 2007 we produced something like 8300 US dollars, world gross product, for every living homo sapien that drew breath that year. We should all be rich, or at the very least fed, instead we live in a shithole and watch people murder each other over scraps and cheer when some asshole manages to hoard some ungodly amount of resources away from the rest.

As someone who until recently was poor as hell and had truly awful luck, I can say Orcish is correct on all counts.

Mental illness is rife in the developed world, and I managed to get hit with more separate diagnoses (that I independently verified afterwards in most cases, and beforehand in the sole exceptional case, so it's not a case of mental health professionals trying to drain me of money) than most people have in their entire extended family.

Most of these mental health diagnoses are sufficient to get someone either commited for the long-term or socially degraded by the simple fact that the majority of the world population has a puritanical mindset stemming from ancient religious beliefs and social pressures. Three of them are sufficient for one or the other alone. One was alone sufficient for both until as recently as the 60s, and still grounds for death by lynch mob until the mid 90s, if the hatred for it has even faded that much.

Considering this, some people are NEVER going to be able to "pull themselves up onto their feet". Some people like me.

I mentioned at the start of my post that my misfortune was only going on until recently. Know what turned it around? None other than the oft-reviled social security system, because otherwise I'd never have found a job due to the social unacceptability of my condition and the fact that it is actually not considered discrimination legally to not hire someone because of this condition. Because when your brain is basically completely fried from birth and things keep piling on due to environmental stressors, you may as well dig a ditch and die in it if no one will lend a hand. And because they won't lend a hand to someone who deviates from the social norms enough to shake the windows of their enclosed mindspace that they presumptuously label "The World" -- all because that someone has a mental condition from birth.

Libertarian ideas are great, but like Orcishgamer said, they are realistically COMPLETELY unpracticable and in the end would land with people like me dying of starvation or being shot in the street like animals because of issues we cannot change or control.