:Indented line. And there we have it- you described yourself and Wikipedia quite clearly for all of us with your use of profanity and obvious bias; your rhetorical outburst betrays your previous anti-bias pronouncement.  What you see as "anti- left wing crap" is, in fact, actual quotes, video and audio of the ACTIONS of the man.  They were not opinions or agenda driven observations, they were actual recordings of ACTION.  You just do not like the source, which is funny because over half of America distrusts the Ny Times and Washington Post (PEW Research poll, November 08, 2012)- which you allow.   

 As for the rest of your rambling diatribe: keep telling yourself that Wiki is a respected source and that no university allows encyclopedia references...  That is a complete absurdity and we both know it.  I am a university professor, and you couldn't be further from the truth.  Encyclopedic references are specifically allowed within the context of general information.  But it matters not as my exercise was mere fabrication.   

 This whole episode was a performance, in public, to explain to 3 of my students why they received failing grades on a project where they used the Wiki as a source.  I couldn't care any less about Martin Bashir; he's just another extremist talking head, no different than Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow.  He was selected for the example because he was the guy on the TV when the students came in my office to make their case.  Our University excludes Wikipedia exclusively due to it's abject inaccuracy on practically every subject where "general consensus" holds a particular bias.  My initial examples were the subjects of: race, religion, political affiliation, perceived bias, climate change and economic recovery.  We randomly selected four of the categories and designed the experiment to provide an accurate result.  In every category, each of us attempted to insert ACTION (defined as the actual events) into the wiki page corresponding to the category, from a referenced source, but from a source with perceived bias against the general consensus bias.  All of the links and verbiage were approved by the dept. and student advisory board, and, determined to be entirely accurate.  Those were the rules...  Had any two been successful, they would have gotten a "B" on their project.  All four failed.  Luckily for them, I am kind and gave them 25 extra credit points for this "test" so their project grades didn't kill them (academically). 

 Our standards and practices board ruled, "Wikipedia is entirely for entertainment purposes and serves only to reinforce the views of the general consensus."  Due to that ruling, Our University physics dept. has renewed it's exclusion of Wikipedia as a source to be cited on anything- graded or not.  Thank you for your assistance; my work here is complete.