There was a fascinating article in the LA Times today about the "conservative answer" to Wikipedia, Conservapedia. I honestly did not have any idea that Wikipedia was considered "left-wing" by some. Among other things, Conservapedia hews to the literal interpration of Genesis, the fossil record and physics and math be damned.

From the LA Times article:

"But consider the entry on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (b. 1947). She "may suffer from a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office" — namely, "clinical narcissism," Conservapedia asserts. Evidence of her instability includes her "ever-changing opinion of the Iraq war." Though Schlafly demands that entries be rigorously footnoted, these sentences are not.

Schlafly calls the armchair psychology "borderline in acceptability" for his site, but he defends the Clinton article on balance as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective." "

Wow, as people know, I am not even remotely a Hillary Clinton fan, but to call the Conservapedia entry on her "an objective, bias-free piece..." is fairly outrageous.

If anyone wants objective, largely bias-free political and economic reporting, I highly recommend the NEWS sections of The Wall Street Journal and the Economist. Both have editorial reputations (one right and one left), but the news departments are totally separate and the best in the business, imho.