Its been around for a while, but my favourite is one criticising wikipedia's entry on George bush, saying that it was biased, but the IP comes from the justice department in Washington DC.

Oh, and the BBC labelling him a wanker.

HAHAHA I wanna see that BBC one

If you see what Fox News has edited, and look under "Keith Olbermann," they changed facts about his comments about Peter Jennings' death from smoking. They also removed a trivia fact about him referring to Bill O'Reilly's penchant for loofas and subsequent sexual harassment charge.

Interesting.

Once upon a time, I tried to look up something on Wikipedia for a developmental biology class (I wish I could remember the exact topic - something about molecular biology), and the only information on the topic was "yo momma," ...so I discontinued using wikipedia, and now try more reliable sources such as, in this case, PubMed. Although the search isn't as quick and easy, the information is far more reliable. When bias from a specific source is involved, at least you know which direction the bias will lean (ie, getting news from CNN vs Fox News). Conversely, Wikipedia is a mixed bag of bias, as pointed out by this post, so further scrutiny and research on any topic is always needed...However, Wikipedia is popularly touted as a reliable source, and people tend to use the information they find there without a second opinion. Frankly, that bugs the shit out of me.

Nice post.

Wikipedia should never, ever be used as a source. But it is consistently entertaining, and often a good resource if you want to know what the general public impression of a topic is. It can also be a resource that leads to reliable sources, through the references that people cite.