Wikipedia bias
I’ve just noticed how biased Wikipedia is. I seldom use it a reference but decided to look at it after Tim Lambert mentioned the site in a post.
I did a search on John Howard and noticed this Further Reading list.
David Barnett and Pru Goward, John Howard, Prime Minister, Viking, 1997
Tony Kevin A Certain Maritime Incident the sinking of SIEV X, Scribe Publications, 2004. ISBN 1920769218.
Margo Kingston Not Happy, John! defending Australia’s democracy, Penguin, June 2004. ISBN 0143002589.
Marion Maddox God Under Howard: The rise of the religious right in Australian politics, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, February 2005. ISBN 1741145686.
David Marr & Marian Wilkinson Dark Victory. ISBN 0143002589
Andrew Wilkie, Axis of deceit, Schwarz Publishing, Melbourne, 2004. In series Black Inc. Agenda. ISBN 09750769-2-2 (“the story of the intelligence officer who risked all to tell the truth about WMD and Iraq”: cover)
Wow!
In the Dicussion section it all becomes clear. Contributor Adam Car writes;
I am referring to the Further reading section – all of which are identified as “criticisms of Howard.” It has never occurred to anyone to have a “Praise of Howard” section. This is of course because almost all Wikpedians (including me) are anti-Howard.Comments like that are fine for a writer, commentator or journalist where the readers know the authors political bent but the pedia suggests accurate information given without bias and its clearly not the case.