I’m accustomed to RWs arguing on the Intertubes dismissing cites to Wikipedia as liberally biased. But I am reading The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America–and What We Can Do to Stop It, by Thom Hartmann, and he states at p. 30:
No citation is given. Never heard of this before. Is it true – of Wikipedia alone, or even “all across the Internet”?
I honestly don’t think they’re that well organized.
Everyone thinks reality is politically further away from them than it is.
Conservatives and liberals think that the centrist middle is leftist or rightist biased, respectively.
Oh, RW think-tanks are easily well-organized enough to do what Hartmann is describing. Which does not necessarily mean they are doing it.
On another site that I frequent one poster did the “Wikipedia is left-leaning” argument. I do think that both sides do frequently edit Wikipedia and each would argue that they’re correcting the misstatements of others. I can’t say, because I don’t know, if any of this is coordinated but it would not surprise me.
But I do hate it when i can’t find info on something that happened during my lifetime.
Out of curiosity, what’s an example of a notable event occurring during your lifetime not covered in Wikipedia.
I was planning to state a couple but my computer started getting wonky. Both concerned Reagan, who has been canonized, if indeed not deified by the GOP. I seem to remember him saying that it wasn’t the business of the United States if another country, for its’ own security policy wanted nuclear weapons. The other concerned the Berlin wall. I remember hearing that Reagan’s speech actually delayed the wall coming down. But can find no internet reference cites supporting either of those memories.
The first thing would seem a rather odd statement since Regan hated nuclear weapons. I am not sure exactly how him giving a speech would delay the wall coming down unless the destruction was scheduled for after his speech ended.
I think Andy Schlafly would disagree with this assessment. He created Conservapedia because Wikipedia wouldn’t allow him and his ilk to spew their unsubstantiated right wing bullshit all over the site.
Thom Hartmann sounds like a loon that is making up stories, but if you ever find the source, please let me know. I’ll happily apply at the think tank(s) responsible and get paid to “fight ignorance” 
To the extreme left, everything is a right-wing conspiracy. To the extreme right, everything is a left-wing conspiracy.
The thinking was that Gorbachev wanted to take the wall down but doing so after Reagan’s speech would make him look like he was “caving in” to foreign pressure.
Here’s one example that Thom might have been referring to:
Sarah Palin supporters try to change Paul Revere page to reflect her statements
On the other hand, when Harvard Ressearchers looked at it they did find bias.. Depending on how they analyzed the data, they found a slight left-leaning bias versus the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or less bias.
All in all, my suspicion would be that Thom is talking about the cases, like the Paul Revere page, where inaccuracies were entered to try to support a candidate. These appear to be one offs more than common practice. OTOH, there’s a reason that you need to check your sources when you use Wiki. The information is only as good as the person that entered it.
Just wanted to add, Thom can be quite the loon. We used to listen to him, but gave it up because he was so over the top. He’s very much the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. He also has some bizarre thing about pigeons that is loony.
I’m not sure either of these is really an event. If Reagan’s policy was really that any country could get nukes, that would be worth mentioning on his page, but if he said it once and then he and/or his advisors immediately walked it back, not so much. Politicians going off script isn’t notable unless these some sort of material effect.
Similarly for the theory about him telling Gorbachev to tear down the wall. If that theory is itself notable for some reason, I could imagine having an article about it. But just because someone hypothesized it once doesn’t mean it’s notable.
Of course Wikipedia isn’t really a single thing. One article or group of articles may well have a group of “right-wing” editors (or even a single such person) sort of camping out on that article(s) and defending it from the godless liberal hordes and generally pushing their POV. Another article or group of articles may have a “left-wing” editor or editors doing battle with the teabagger Neandertals and pushing their POV. And a third article or group of articles may be about some completely non-partisan topic (something in pure mathematics, say) which totally doesn’t interest any of the partisan political POV warriors (although the mathematics nerds may be fighting it out hot and heavy).
At any rate, Wikipedia is The Encyclopedia That Even You Can Edit, so if you think some article or portion thereof is inaccurate or unduly biased, you can always get in there and duke it out for The Truth. Be sure you can cite reputable sources, no “original research”, no hitting below the belt, etc.
I dunno about pigeons, but:
How loony that is would be a question for another debate. Also of some interest:
It doesn’t say he actually has ADD or ADHD, which conditions certainly aren’t all that loony anyway.
I think the right-wing corruption has spread to his article because he seems like a loon.
“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the wiki controls the past.”