I have temporarily returned, but Wikipedia remains subject to the most appalling partisan biases, enforced by Admins and staff. Where else could one find people at such a level who seriously claim The Economist is no different than over 700 various (sleazy) tabloids? The mind boggles. Government transparency, including finance, is still my interest. I see Wikipedia remains stuck at 2008 for campaign finance disclosure (FollowTheMoney.org) for state legislators, although that website started providing career profile links in (I believe) 2010. Serious contenders for the U.S. Congress? Considered "non-notable" and their articles deleted (NOT merged, despite claims to the contrary) shortly before their elections - at just the right point in time to make sure the "required process" for any appeals ends the day after the election. How Lee Atwater-ish. How Jimmy Wales-ish. Meanwhile, endless articles about various tiny schools, which should be incorporated into their local village or even local school district articles, are considered brilliantly notable and get their own articles. As do characters in TV shows and films who were briefly onscreen for one episode. Does that situation really reflect the priorities of over 300 million people in the U.S.? I don't think so. They don't see a reason why "all of the above" isn't an option, and neither do I. I care about an informed electorate in a democracy, and if Wikipedia wants to claim to be like a "library" or "public park", those in charge should start acting like responsible adults instead of video-game playing kids.
