Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vote?

Not because they don't want people of other races to vote because they don't like their race. Rather they want to make it harder for certain ethnic groups to vote because its almost a given they will vote for candidates they oppose.

I have a friend who privately acknowledged to me he supports efforts to make it difficult for certain minorities to vote because as he calls it, "a quick [political] death" would occur that would essentially permanently end the election our party to national office. He thinks however if the political opposition is kept from having total dominance by any means including making it difficult for certain ethnic groups vote, hopefully a political rock star with a charismatic personality will eventually arise and give our party a much needed reinvigoration. This provided we can maintain plausible deniability this has been a strategy.

His support for efforts to make it hard for people of some ethnic groups to vote is not driven by dislike for their race. He has no problem with different races. He just wants his political team to not become extinct. If they voted for his political team he would be all about helping them vote. He also firmly believes if shoe was on the other foot, he thinks his opposition party would take his exact position.

BTW: I don't think my friend has a racist bone in his body but like a lot of people when it comes to politics, is severely lacking in principle.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

"ppl"

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Jredbaron96 said:

"ppl"

Click to expand...

People. Exceeded the allowed number of characters.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

People. Exceeded the allowed number of characters.

Click to expand...

I'll let it slide this once...

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

Not because they don't want people of other races to vote because they don't like their race. Rather they want to make it harder for certain ethnic groups to vote because its almost a given they will vote for candidates they oppose.

I have a friend who privately acknowledged to me he supports efforts to make it difficult for certain minorities to vote because as he calls it, "a quick [political] death" would occur that would essentially permanently end the election our party to national office. He thinks however if the political opposition is kept from having total dominance by any means including making it difficult for certain ethnic groups vote, hopefully a political rock star with a charismatic personality will eventually arise and give our party a much needed reinvigoration. This provided we can maintain plausible deniability this has been a strategy.

His support for efforts to make it hard for people of some ethnic groups to vote is not driven by dislike for their race. He has no problem with different races. He just wants his political team to not become extinct. If they voted for his political team he would be all about helping them vote. He also firmly believes if shoe was on the other foot, he thinks his opposition party would take his exact position.

BTW: I don't think my friend has a racist bone in his body but like a lot of people when it comes to politics, is severely lacking in principle.

Click to expand...

I dispute the entire premise of this thread, and call you out for your dishonesty.

Nobody is trying to make it harder for certain races to vote. That's a wrong-wing lie, that you apparently have chosen to try to perpetuate.

You're obviously referring to the controversy over whether voters should be required to provide credible identification when voting, and to the wrong-wing claim that those who support such measures are doing so only to suppress black votes, as if it is somehow more difficult for a black voter to obtain suitable identification than for a voter of any other race.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

The "I have nothing against blacks, its just that they vote wrong" excuse is still racism. However, I do support presenting a valid, state issued, photo ID bearing the name and address of the registered voter. I do not support other restrictions on the days/hours of polling place operation intended to limit the vote.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Bob Blaylock said:

I dispute the entire premise of this thread, and call you out for your dishonesty.
Nobody is trying to make it harder for certain races to vote. That's a wrong-wing lie, that you apparently have chosen to try to perpetuate.

You're obviously referring to the controversy over whether voters should be required to provide credible identification when voting, and to the wrong-wing claim that those who support such measures are doing so only to suppress black votes, as if it is somehow more difficult for a black voter to obtain suitable identification than for a voter of any other race.

Click to expand...

Wrong on booth counts.

The bigger question is, is it racist.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

Not because they don't want people of other races to vote because they don't like their race. Rather they want to make it harder for certain ethnic groups to vote because its almost a given they will vote for candidates they oppose.

I have a friend who privately acknowledged to me he supports efforts to make it difficult for certain minorities to vote because as he calls it, "a quick [political] death" would occur that would essentially permanently end the election our party to national office. He thinks however if the political opposition is kept from having total dominance by any means including making it difficult for certain ethnic groups vote, hopefully a political rock star with a charismatic personality will eventually arise and give our party a much needed reinvigoration. This provided we can maintain plausible deniability this has been a strategy.

His support for efforts to make it hard for people of some ethnic groups to vote is not driven by dislike for their race. He has no problem with different races. He just wants his political team to not become extinct. If they voted for his political team he would be all about helping them vote. He also firmly believes if shoe was on the other foot, he thinks his opposition party would take his exact position.

BTW: I don't think my friend has a racist bone in his body but like a lot of people when it comes to politics, is severely lacking in principle.

Click to expand...

It has often seemed a good idea in human history to silence the opposition and it works very nicely, where the military and police back the leader.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

I'm not sure I'd call it racism. It makes you a ****ty person, no doubt, but I don't think it's racism.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

ttwtt78640 said:

The "I have nothing against blacks, its just that they vote wrong" excuse is still racism. However, I do support presenting a valid, state issued, photo ID bearing the name and address of the registered voter. I do not support other restrictions on the days/hours of polling place operation intended to limit the vote.

Click to expand...

Do you think opposing Puerto Rico statehood and/or targeting early voting days for closure to coincide with when a significant turnout from black voters show up in Churches buses on Sunday after church SPECIFICALLY because these minority groups vote democrat, is racist?

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

Do you think opposing Puerto Rico statehood and/or targeting early voting days for closure to coincide with when a significant turnout from black voters show up in Churches buses on Sunday after church SPECIFICALLY because these minority groups vote democrat, is racist?

Click to expand...

Puerto Rico, like Guam, does not want statehood since the costs outweigh the benefits. As I said before, yes I oppose the restricting of voting days/hours that discourage voting.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

ttwtt78640 said:

Puerto Rico, like Guam, does not want statehood since the costs outweigh the benefits. As I said before, yes I oppose the restricting of voting days/hours that discourage voting.

Click to expand...

Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report about the fiscal impact of Puerto Rico statehood on the federal government. The report strongly supports the conclusion that statehood would economically benefit both Puerto Rico and the nation as a whole.


Read more: With GAO report, momentum builds for Puerto Rican statehood | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

On November 6, 2012, eligible voters in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico were presented with two questions. First, when asked to approve or reject Puerto Rico's current status as a commonwealth (or territory), voters rejected it 54% to 46%.

Second, when then asked to choose their preferred status for Puerto Rico, 61.15% of those who marked an option chose statehood in the United States, while 24% of ballots were submitted blank.

Statehood movement in Puerto Rico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might not be aware of the growing momentum in PR for statehood, but assuming the people want it, do you think its racist to oppose statehood out of a desire to keep Puerto Ricans from voting in federal elections because they'll add 2 Democrat US Senators to the US Senate, 7 US Democrat Congressmen in the US House of Representatives and 9 Electoral College votes.


BTW: Most of the opposition to statehood in PR, which is limited, stems from a nationalist Hispanic pride faction.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report about the fiscal impact of Puerto Rico statehood on the federal government. The report strongly supports the conclusion that statehood would economically benefit both Puerto Rico and the nation as a whole.


Read more: With GAO report, momentum builds for Puerto Rican statehood | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

On November 6, 2012, eligible voters in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico were presented with two questions. First, when asked to approve or reject Puerto Rico's current status as a commonwealth (or territory), voters rejected it 54% to 46%.

Second, when then asked to choose their preferred status for Puerto Rico, 61.15% of those who marked an option chose statehood in the United States, while 24% of ballots were submitted blank.

Statehood movement in Puerto Rico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might not be aware of the growing momentum in PR for statehood, but assuming the people want it, do you think its racist to oppose statehood out of a desire to keep Puerto Ricans from voting because they'll add 2 Democrat US Senators to the US Senate, 7 US Democrat Congressmen in the US House of Representatives and 9 Electoral College votes.


BTW: Most of the opposition to statehood in PR, which is limited, stems from a nationalist Hispanic pride faction.

Click to expand...

While the federal political power of Puerto Rico would be increased one must still consider what a "special" status it now enjoys. The per capita GDP of Puerto Rico is way below (about 1/3 of the US average with 41% now below the FPL) that of any current US state meaning that it would instantly become a full blown welfare state and lose its "special" tax status as a US territory.

By some economists Puerto Rico's economy is considered somewhat fictitious. Puerto Rico has very few natural resources of economic value and its economy relies mainly on Federal Aid from the United States Government, which depends on the industrialization programs and the tax incentives that U.S. offers. Economists believe that reinstating IRS Section 936 or making IRS Section 30A permanent for U.S. firms operating in Puerto Rico is not the best way to stimulate sustainable development on the island.

Click to expand...

Puerto Rico Economy

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

ttwtt78640 said:

While the federal political power of Puerto Rico would be increased one must still consider what a "special" status it now enjoys. The per capita GDP of Puerto Rico is way below (about 1/3 of the US average with 41% now below the FPL) that of any current US state meaning that it would instantly become a full blown welfare state and lose its "special" tax status as a US territory.




Puerto Rico Economy

Click to expand...

But my question is would it be racist to oppose Puerto Rico statehood specifically to prevent Puerto Ricans from voting in federal elections, who are American citizens from birth, because they will vote democrat? That is unless they relocate to the mainland, which over 50% have.

And btw, Americans born on the mainland lose their ability to vote in federal elections if they relocate to Puerto Rico.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

But my question is would it be racist to oppose Puerto Rico statehood specifically to prevent Puerto Ricans from voting in federal elections, who are American citizens from birth, because they will vote democrat? That is unless they relocate to the mainland, which over 50% have.

And btw, Americans born on the mainland lose their ability to vote in federal elections if they relocate to Puerto Rico.

Click to expand...

Race has nothing to do with Puerto Rico's statehood; obviously adding a state with 41% of its households qualifying for "safety net" assistance would vote for more of it. Puerto Rico is rich compared to its neighbors yet poor compared to all other US states.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

ttwtt78640 said:

Race has nothing to do with Puerto Rico's statehood; obviously adding a state with 41% of its households qualifying for "safety net" assistance would vote for more of it. Puerto Rico is rich compared to its neighbors yet poor compared to all other US states.

Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, Puerto Ricans living in poverty already receive welfare funded by the federal government. Gaining statehood would not have any impact on federal entitlements, unless I'm mistaken.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/13-population-puerto-rico-gets-food-stamps-2-billion-2012

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

If I'm not mistaken, Puerto Ricans living in poverty already receive welfare funded by the federal government. Gaining statehood would not has any impact on federal entitlements, unless I'm mistaken.

Click to expand...

While the residents of Puerto Rico now get a lot of federal assistance it pales compred to what they would get as a state. Medicaid and the EITC alone would cost the nation billions more annually.

Welfare in Puerto Rico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

You might not be aware of the growing momentum in PR for statehood, but assuming the people want it, do you think its racist to oppose statehood out of a desire to keep Puerto Ricans from voting in federal elections because they'll add 2 Democrat US Senators to the US Senate, 7 US Democrat Congressmen in the US House of Representatives and 9 Electoral College votes.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

ttwtt78640 said:

While the residents of Puerto Rico now get a lot of federal assistance it pales compred to what they would get as a state. Medicaid and the EITC alone would cost the nation billions more annually.

Welfare in Puerto Rico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

I understand there can be people who like you I gather oppose Puerto Rico statehood not because of a desire to keep them from voting in federal elections but a new perceived tax burden on the federal treasury. I'm not asking about that. I'm curious as to whether people think its racist to oppose Puerto Rico statehood because they don't want Puerto Ricans voting. That is those who choose to live in Puerto Rico. They can already vote if they move to the mainland, a big part of why Florida is apparently a blue state now.

Wrt adding to welfare costs, I might be wrong but from what I understand, it turns out to be a wash. I think there's a lot of confusion on US territories. They basically operate as states already with a handful of exceptions.

1. Anyone born in a US territory is a US citizen from birth, no different than being born in Ohio. Citizens living in the US territories carry American passports. I was born in Illinois but I lived in a territory when I got my first passport. The only difference is instead of my application being processed by the US state department directly, it was processed by the Lt. Governor's office. No idea why, but that's how it was done. I not sure if its still being done that way; I sure hope not in our post 9/11 world.

2. Tax collection. Residents of the territories do not pay federal income or other federal taxes to the IRS. They do however file 1040 each April 15 and pay taxes based on the federal tax code. However, instead of that money going to Washington, it stays in the territory and acts as a type of "state income tax" spent by the territorial legislature locally. I think tariffs on imports go to Washington. The fact that residents of Puerto Rico will begin to send their 1040 and corporate taxes to Washington for the first time should offset any new entitlement burden.

3. Territorial residents, provided they are US citizens, may only vote in local elections. This applies to native Puerto Ricans and mainlanders who have relocated there. Local elections do include presidential primaries but not the general election.

4. Federal law applies including federal courts up and including appealing to the US Supreme Court.

5. People wanting to join the military, join the US military. In the past when there was a military draft, people in the territories were drafted along with people from Ohio and Michigan. There are territory National Guards who are commanded by the governor and can be federalized by the president. An attack on a US territory is an attack on the United States; example: Pearl Harbor.

6. People born in a US territory may run for president. Example: Barry Goldwater.

7. The US postal service handles mail delivery, a lot more efficiently than on the mainland I'll add. Instead of expensive home delivery, most people pick up mail at community centralized mailboxes or at the post office. The same .49 cent stamp that gets a letter sent to the other side of your own town covers the postage to or from a territory. Some phone companies however treat the US territories as international roaming and long distance. Some treat them as part of the US. My cell phone treats Puerto Rico as the US. My guess is when PR becomes a state all the phone companies will start to include domestic roaming and long distance.

8. No US Senators. Their representatives in the House are called delegates and may not vote on laws. They can introduce bills, vote in committee, chair committees, nominate students to the military academies, represent the US overseas as part if congressional delegations and have the same salaries and perks as other congressmen.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

I understand there can be people who like you I gather oppose Puerto Rico statehood not because of a desire to keep them from voting in federal elections but a new perceived tax burden on the federal treasury. I'm not asking about that. I'm curious as to whether people think its racist to oppose Puerto Rico statehood because they don't want Puerto Ricans voting. That is those who choose to live in Puerto Rico. They can already vote if they move to the mainland, a big part of why Florida is apparently a blue state now.

Wrt adding to welfare costs, I might be wrong but from what I understand, it turns out to be a wash. I think there's a lot of confusion on US territories. They basically operate as states already with a handful of exceptions.

1. Anyone born in a US territory is a US citizen from birth, no different than being born in Ohio. Citizens living in the US territories carry American passports. I was born in Illinois but I lived in a territory when I got my first passport. The only difference is instead of my application being processed by the US state department directly, it was processed by the Lt. Governor's office. No idea why, but that's how it was done. I not sure if its still being done that way; I sure hope not in our post 9/11 world.

2. Tax collection. Residents of the territories do not pay federal income or other federal taxes to the IRS. They do however file 1040 each April 15 and pay taxes based on the federal tax code. However, instead of that money going to Washington, it stays in the territory and acts as a type of "state income tax" spent by the territorial legislature locally. I think tariffs on imports go to Washington. The fact that residents of Puerto Rico will begin to send their 1040 and corporate taxes to Washington for the first time should offset any new entitlement burden.

3. Territorial residents, provided they are US citizens, may only vote in local elections. This applies to native Puerto Ricans and mainlanders who have relocated there. Local elections do include presidential primaries but not the general election.

4. Federal law applies including federal courts up and including appealing to the US Supreme Court.

5. People wanting to join the military, join the US military. In the past when there was a military draft, people in the territories were drafted along with people from Ohio and Michigan. There are territory National Guards who are commanded by the governor and can be federalized by the president. An attack on a US territory is an attack on the United States; example: Pearl Harbor.

6. People born in a US territory may run for president. Example: Barry Goldwater.

7. The US postal service handles mail delivery, a lot more efficiently than on the mainland I'll add. Instead of expensive home delivery, most people pick up mail at community centralized mailboxes or at the post office. The same .49 cent stamp that gets a letter sent to the other side of your own town covers the postage to or from a territory. Some phone companies however treat the US territories as international roaming and long distance. Some treat them as part of the US. My cell phone treats Puerto Rico as the US. My guess is when PR becomes a state all the phone companies will start to include domestic roaming and long distance.

8. No US Senators. Their representatives in the House are called delegates and may not vote on laws. They can introduce bills, vote in committee, chair committees, nominate students to the military academies, represent the US overseas as part if congressional delegations and have the same salaries and perks as other congressmen.

Click to expand...

#2 above is nonsense. The median annual income in Puerto Rico is under $20K which will not generate additional tax reveue close to what will then flow back to that island state.

In the midst of this economic malaise, the island’s poverty rate is at an all-time high of 44.9 percent. Now, in comparison, Mississippi has the highest poverty rate on the mainland of the United States at 24 percent. Puerto Rico has almost twice the number of people in poverty as the worst state in the United States.

Click to expand...

Puerto Rico's Economy Is In Shambles, It Must Be Rejuvenated | Fox News Latino

EDIT: added census data

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-02.pdf

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

ttwtt78640 said:

#2 above is nonsense. The median annual income in Puerto Rico is under $20K which will not generate additional tax reveue close to what will then flow back to that island state.



Puerto Rico's Economy Is In Shambles, It Must Be Rejuvenated | Fox News Latino

EDIT: added census data

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-02.pdf

Click to expand...

A read somewhere a big part of why Puerto Rico wants statehood now is the economic boom it would create, with Hawaii serving as precedent. Just the PR value (free pun) of statehood is likely to drive new tourism and other investment. If that happens, its likely many native Puerto Ricans as well as other Americans who've moved to the mainland due to limited economic opportunities will move there or back there. One problem many economically depressed areas suffer from is "brain drain" where people, especially younger people, who have talents and smarts move away to pursue opportunities not available locally leaving behind the lazy farts, deadbeats and people with no ambition (with exceptions, of course.) Statehood would turn momentum around. Although its likely the welfare people will still be there, there will be a huge economic boom too.

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Smeagol said:

Not because they don't want people of other races to vote because they don't like their race. Rather they want to make it harder for certain ethnic groups to vote because its almost a given they will vote for candidates they oppose.

I have a friend who privately acknowledged to me he supports efforts to make it difficult for certain minorities to vote because as he calls it, "a quick [political] death" would occur that would essentially permanently end the election our party to national office. He thinks however if the political opposition is kept from having total dominance by any means including making it difficult for certain ethnic groups vote, hopefully a political rock star with a charismatic personality will eventually arise and give our party a much needed reinvigoration. This provided we can maintain plausible deniability this has been a strategy.

His support for efforts to make it hard for people of some ethnic groups to vote is not driven by dislike for their race. He has no problem with different races. He just wants his political team to not become extinct. If they voted for his political team he would be all about helping them vote. He also firmly believes if shoe was on the other foot, he thinks his opposition party would take his exact position.

BTW: I don't think my friend has a racist bone in his body but like a lot of people when it comes to politics, is severely lacking in principle.

Click to expand...

Maybe I should start a poll asking "Are people against voter ID racist to assume that minorities are too stupid to get a government issued ID card/license".

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Bob Blaylock said:

I dispute the entire premise of this thread, and call you out for your dishonesty.

Nobody is trying to make it harder for certain races to vote. That's a wrong-wing lie, that you apparently have chosen to try to perpetuate.

You're obviously referring to the controversy over whether voters should be required to provide credible identification when voting, and to the wrong-wing claim that those who support such measures are doing so only to suppress black votes, as if it is somehow more difficult for a black voter to obtain suitable identification than for a voter of any other race.

Click to expand...

You're trying to tell me there's no racial voter suppression in the modern United States?

Then why does this Wikipedia page exist?

Voter suppression in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Wikipedia lying?

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

Ad_Captandum said:

You're trying to tell me there's no racial voter suppression in the modern United States?

Then why does this Wikipedia page exist?

Voter suppression in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Wikipedia lying?

Click to expand...

:laughat: "Is Wikipedia lying" ? :2rofll:

Reliability of Wikipedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expert opinion

Librarians' views:

In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, self-described information specialist and Internet consultant Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."

Academia:

Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source, and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence or credentials in the topic. Adrian Riskin, a mathematician in Whittier College commented that while highly technical articles may be written by mathematicians for mathematicians, the more general maths topics, such as the article on polynomials are written in a very amateurish fashion with a number of obvious mistakes

Science and medicine:

Science and medicine are areas where accuracy is of high importance and peer review is the norm. While some of Wikipedia's content has passed a form of peer review, most has not


Susceptibility to bias:

Individual bias and the WikiScanner toolMain article: WikiScanner
In August 2007, WikiScanner, a tool developed by Virgil Griffith of the California Institute of Technology, was released to match anonymous IP edits in the encyclopedia with an extensive database of addresses. News stories appeared about IP addresses from various organizations such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Diebold, Inc. and the (conservative led) Australian government being used to make edits to Wikipedia articles, sometimes of an opinionated or questionable nature

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wikipedia:General disclaimer

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Do you assume ppl are racist if they want to make it hard for others races to vot

APACHERAT said:

:laughat: "Is Wikipedia lying" ? :2rofll:

Reliability of Wikipedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expert opinion

Librarians' views:

In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, self-described information specialist and Internet consultant Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."

Academia:

Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source, and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence or credentials in the topic. Adrian Riskin, a mathematician in Whittier College commented that while highly technical articles may be written by mathematicians for mathematicians, the more general maths topics, such as the article on polynomials are written in a very amateurish fashion with a number of obvious mistakes

Science and medicine:

Science and medicine are areas where accuracy is of high importance and peer review is the norm. While some of Wikipedia's content has passed a form of peer review, most has not


Susceptibility to bias:

Individual bias and the WikiScanner toolMain article: WikiScanner
In August 2007, WikiScanner, a tool developed by Virgil Griffith of the California Institute of Technology, was released to match anonymous IP edits in the encyclopedia with an extensive database of addresses. News stories appeared about IP addresses from various organizations such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Diebold, Inc. and the (conservative led) Australian government being used to make edits to Wikipedia articles, sometimes of an opinionated or questionable nature

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wikipedia:General disclaimer

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

So, all of this is indeed to say that you don't believe Wikipedia. Correct?