https://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=WikipediaWikipedia - Revision history2026-04-08T06:25:23ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.32.0https://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=5803&oldid=prevEric Rasmusen at 01:21, 26 September 20222022-09-26T01:21:24Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">Revision as of 01:21, 26 September 2022</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Perennial Source], Wikipedia, shows extreme bias on the part of Wikipedia. The Daily Mail, the New York Post, Breitbart News, Epoch Times, etc. are considered unreliable or partisan, but not The New York Times or Washington Post. Scan down the list. In particular, the publications considered or not considered "partisan" show evidence of bias.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Perennial Source], Wikipedia, shows extreme bias on the part of Wikipedia. The Daily Mail, the New York Post, Breitbart News, Epoch Times, etc. are considered unreliable or partisan, but not The New York Times or Washington Post. Scan down the list. In particular, the publications considered or not considered "partisan" show evidence of bias.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">*[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claremont_Institute Claremont Institute] is an example of a wildly biased Wikipedia article, e.g. "According to a November 4, 2021 Vice article,[35] the actions of pro-Trump Claremont Institute leaders—senior fellows John Eastman, Brian Kennedy, Angelo Codevilla, and Michael Anton, as well as Ryan Williams, the institute's president, and Thomas Klingenstein,[36][37] chairman of the board— culminated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol."</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">*This [https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/07/08/opinion/i-quit-twitter-now-i-browse-edit-wars-wikipedia/ Boston Globe article] is paywalled but is supposed to be good.</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>Eric Rasmusenhttps://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=3480&oldid=prevRasmusen p1vaim: Created page with "*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Perennial Source], Wikipedia, shows extreme bias on the part of Wikipedia. The Daily Mail, the New..."2021-09-16T11:05:26Z<p>Created page with "*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Perennial Source], Wikipedia, shows extreme bias on the part of Wikipedia. The Daily Mail, the New..."</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Perennial Source], Wikipedia, shows extreme bias on the part of Wikipedia. The Daily Mail, the New York Post, Breitbart News, Epoch Times, etc. are considered unreliable or partisan, but not The New York Times or Washington Post. Scan down the list. In particular, the publications considered or not considered "partisan" show evidence of bias.</div>Rasmusen p1vaim