Wikipedia has been overrun by liberally biased MODS who routinely have negative or uncomplimentary pages on things they don't like and have glowing or 100% positive pages for things they DO LIKE.

An example of their disgusting BIAS...

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

Yes, IMDB is a little like Wikipedia, except we're not a bunch of left wing loons (apologies to the GOOD members/editors of Wikipedia whose reputations are being tarred by the actions of a good number of their editors....)

You mean IMFDB? And that stuff about the mods is ridiculous, no admin. has the right to remove legitamite info (especially sourced!) simply because they don't like the user's addition. Like you said MPM, I'm sure there are good administrators on the site, but the biased ones are unexceptable. Hopefully none of us admins. would do stuff like that.

No apologies needed. :)

I just made some edits to the AWB article on Wikipedia. For some reason, the H&K G36E (which didn't even exist when the AWB was passed, in either military or civvie form) was mentioned amongst the guns banned by name, while the picture of a TEC-DC9 that's in the article was listed as an AB-10.

Ah, Wikipedia...the shining light of truth and neutrality in a dark and biased world. :rolleyes:

Actually, the addition of the G36 sounds more to me like the kind of thing some dumb 11-year old kid would add to the article to make it sound "cooler", without understanding the political implications. I can't imagine there are too many anti-gunners who even know what a G36 is. Some of them don't even know the difference between a "magazine" and a "stock" (Chuck Schumer, anyone?)

But I do agree with the basic premise that Wikipedia has serious neutrality issues.

Speaking of Wikipedia, someone on there altered the HK416 article to say that it was originally called the HK M5000...