I used to think Wikipedia is neutral. Lately I've been kind of shocked - I don't know if this is a new development, but check out these two pages: http://en.wi

I used to think Wikipedia is neutral. Lately I've been kind of shocked - I don't know if this is a new development, but check out these two pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro Look at the tables of contents. If you didn't know better, you'd think Pinochet was more corrupt and murderous. But, Castro killed 10x as many people, tortured 100x as many, stole orders of magnitude more money and wealth... There's 36 links in Castro's Wikipedia table of contents. Only four of them are mildly negative: 9 Controversy and criticism, 9.1 Human rights record, 9.2 Allegations of mismanagement, 9.3 Allegations of wealth. There's 24 items in Pinochet's table of contents. 10 of them are very negative. 2 Military coup of 1973, 2.1 U.S. Backing of the Coup, 3 Military junta, 4.1 Allegations of fascism, 4.2 Suppression of opposition, 5 Arrest and trial in Britain, 7 Secret bank accounts, tax evasion and arms deal, 8 Human rights violations, 9.1 Demonstrations If you didn't know better, you'd think Pinochet was a very bad man and Castro was a good man. But regardless of your politics, Chile is a much nicer place to live than Cuba these days, yet Cuba was a much nicer place than Chile before Castro came to power. Castro's policies destroyed Cuba. Whereas Pinochet has a mixed, but pretty good record. Hell, Chile just passed net neutrality laws last week. A similar article is this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_surge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_surge By almost all analysis and objective metrics, the 2007 troop surge worked. Violence went down, insurgency went down, attacks went down, crime went down afterwards. But if you look at the article, it's loaded with criticisms, opposition, and things unrelated to that particular military campaign. Then there's a quick blurb, "Interpretation of the surge's results ... Whether the surge led to the improvement in Iraqi security, or other factors caused it, is disputed by some." Wikipedia is not neutral. It's edited by people who have more free time on their hands are and are more tech savvy. People with more free time who are more tech savvy tend to skew demographically, which is sad, it should be a neutral resource and would be better if it is. Compare the Castro and Pinochet articles if you want to see it in action, you'd never realize that Pinochet was a much better and more effective leader. They both did bad stuff, but Pinochet did less bad stuff and more good stuff. His country was worse when he took power, and better afterwards. Cuba was much wealthier, prosperous, and better off before Castro, and is much worse now. It's a shame that this is misrepresented in Wikipedia.