Wikipedia propagandizes global warming.

[map]

The $hit is floating to the surface just takes a little time.

http://www.trapshooters.com/cfpages/...506&Messages=1

CBS News > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4241293.shtml

[Tommy]

I have read that there are many Wikipedia topics where people of vastly different opinions try to sway the masses to their point of view. For example, some wanted the biography of Michael Jackson to emphasize his entertainment career with only a footnote about allegations of pedophilia. Others wanted the biography to focus on his alleged wrong doings first and then talk about his less important career. Typically, the topics will jump back and forth in tone as competing contributors try to get the last word, until someone at Wikipedia puts an end to it by limiting the ability of contributors to make changes. Inevitably, the side that doesn't get to see its comments included feels slighted.

Wikipedia is not the ultimate source of true informaton. It can be helpful, but like everything else on the Internet, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

[bomelia]

I run in a long, multi-day event in Tennessee during the summer. As a joke, I modified the chigger page to include information about Tennessee chiggers and the fact that you can get a shot for them and a "Dog tag" to prove it. I made it so that folks HAD to get the shot and have proof (dog tag) on them at all times. When the email banter about chiggers got to a crescendo (before the event) I suggested people wiki the subject. People went nuts when they found out they needed a shot and had to wear dog tags.

Hillarious.

I would be interested to learn how much money Connelly gets from the climate folks.

Mike