Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.

Yes, as described in the blog post, I would imagine the median Fox News viewer to find Wikipedia biased. But the median Fox News viewer is not the median American, much less median world citizen.

But no seriously, having finished reading it, this article is incredibly Christian-centric and Americentric.

Regarding the missing topics mentioned in the article (updated to quote them for convenience):

    The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump.

For example, the September 11 attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi objectively happened - few people on the left or right would pretend they did not happen or that were not notable events of Barack Obama’s presidency (as the article discusses).

This is not a matter of whether you watch Fox News or not.

Have you bothered to do any sort of comparison as to how similar attacks are reported? At a quick glance, I see nothing on George W Bush's wiki page[0] about the 2002 consulate attack in Kolkata[1], for example.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_attack_on_American_cultur...

Not that it's necessarily wrong for it to not be listed there, though. The article on GWB is about him and what he did as president - it isn't meant to be a complete history of the United States between 2001 and 2009.