I remember a time when telling the truth wasn't considered bias by the Republican party. It was the same time when, "conservative speech" didn't mean lies, misinformation, and hate speech.

The answer to any bias in Wikipedia is to cite more verifiable sources, use better sound reasoning and update when newer evidence is found.

The answer is probably not the wishful thinking of one of USA's unrepresentative main parties. To learn about public misrepresentation in government check out a page from Wikipedia.

They don’t accept verifiable sources. A hundred peer reviewed papers don’t weigh up against a single dissenting voice if that one voice agrees with their views.

I remember a time when telling the truth wasn't considered bias by the Republican party. It was the same time when, "conservative speech" didn't mean lies, misinformation, and hate speech.

You can? I certainly cannot.

It’s funny, because they clearly have the idea in their head that Wikipedia is a single organization capable of an ideological bias. When if you take a single look at some talk pages, it would become clear very quickly that Wikipedia is built on people vociferously disagreeing and bringing sources to make the information presented ever more credible and unbiased.

The answer to any bias in Wikipedia is to cite more verifiable sources, use better sound reasoning and update when newer evidence is found.

The answer is probably not the wishful thinking of one of USA's unrepresentative main parties. To learn about public misrepresentation in government check out a page from Wikipedia.

To play devil's advocate, an issue arises when there AREN'T more verifiable sources. If someone makes an outlandish claim like "Billy Joel used to wash his ass with crisco" and cites a dubious interview, it's hard to find a source that definitively states Billy Joel DIDN'T wash his ass with crisco. Even worse, is if there was an actual, verified instance of one time where Billy Joel washed his ass with crisco. That may have been the only time he ever did it, and it may have been done as a joke or something like that, but now we have an interview saying he did it regularly, and an example of when he did. Now it's a lot harder to disprove.

I feel gross defending Republican talking points, now I need to go take a shower. Maybe wash my ass with crisco.

They continue to do nothing but oppress and waste (steal) money

To play devil's advocate, an issue arises when there AREN'T more verifiable sources. If someone makes an outlandish claim like "Billy Joel used to wash his ass with crisco" and cites a dubious interview, it's hard to find a source that definitively states Billy Joel DIDN'T wash his ass with crisco. Even worse, is if there was an actual, verified instance of one time where Billy Joel washed his ass with crisco. That may have been the only time he ever did it, and it may have been done as a joke or something like that, but now we have an interview saying he did it regularly, and an example of when he did. Now it's a lot harder to disprove.

I feel gross defending Republican talking points, now I need to go take a shower. Maybe wash my ass with crisco.

Pre-Reagan

Wikipedia is not accepted by colleges as a reliable source to cite. When you are writing a paper/essay. That should tell you that it isn’t a reliable source for information.

That's ridiculous. It's not allowed because it's not a primary source of information. It's a great jumping off point for knowledge and if you need to cite something you can just look through its sources at the bottom of each page.