"

I think this is just a bit silly that you can't see your own biases. Why can't you see your own biases? Or had you considered the fact a good majority of Wikipedia editors share a Left of center POV by Jimmy Wales' own admission? The bias is hardly in a conservative direction, or even neutral. How can you say there isn't a decided hostility to conservative or traditional points of view on Wikipedia
Wikipedia's NPOV rule is meaningless, considering this fact. Explain to me why you think my observation of fact is absurd? Wikipedia isn't a reliable source because this fact, and if you hadn't been reading students in colleges in America, at least, are discouraged from citing it because of serious factual errors and political biases that pass for the truth. 
The problem here IS NOT with me.  
Guy, I wish you could see how the world views Wikipedia, and it's not good. Wikipedia's NPOV rule is symbolic, and from what I have seen no one here follows it. I have read all of the rules,and I have made every effort to follow them. Do everyone a favor and declare that Wikipedia is a Left-wing site. e.g.,  a blog. It comes down to an ideosyncratic application of the rules to fit your worldviews.
FM writes for the Democratic Underground, Jim68sch has confessed to having Marxist sentiments and you have confessed to being sympathetic to homosexuality. So, how can you say that there isn't a Left of center bias on Wikipedia?  I am mentioning the fact I Googled FM's handle, and found posts under his handle on the decidedly Liberal/Socialist Democratic Underground because it shows where his political biases lay.
How then can he be anymore objective than I?
FM said I weakened his viewpoint that Dominionism was a threat or a problem by adding the viewpoints of self-professed Christian Reconstructionists to the Dominionism article. How can you say that he's neutral anymore than I am neutral. My beef with that particular article is that it seems to stereotype all conservative American Christians as wanting to replace the U.S. Constitution with a neo-Puritan theocracy. 
Wikipedia lacks the same quality as Encyclopedia Britannica when it comes to maintaining a non-partisan perspective?
I consider myself knowledgeable about the Christian right, at least the Catholic faction therof, and I object to what I see as the blatant stereotyping of conservative Christians. The fact Chip Berlet or Katherine Yurica are considered ""experts"" furthers my perception of bias. Mr. Berlet, I will concede, is more factual than say Ms. Yurica, but he paints with a very broad brush that ignores the diversity of the Christian right.
Their writings are riddled with strawman attacks, guilt by association, glaring generalizations, etc. The series of articles on ""Dominionism"" are riddled with factual errors and POV. Is it NPOV to limit the content to a single POV where only those who share a single POV are granted ""expert"" status?
I will leave Wikipedia alone for awhile, and perhaps limit myself to editing on the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox-oriented pages. When it comes to politics, Wikipedia is of limited informative value.
 "