Concerning Wikipedia.
https://creation.com/wikipedia (the CMI home page equates systematic discrimination against biblical creation with 'biased articles' - which is strange since Christians are supposed to believe in truth and to be biased - as I am - against falsehoods and lies)
According to this self-justifying article "Wikipedia is rife with overt falsehoods and bias against biblical creationists". Does he offer an example showing this? No - he does not. Probably because he can't. Instead he moans about these factual comments:
"Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists) ...";
"Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. It is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories (the phrase 'lacking a critical discourse itself' is not very clear; Price suggests the comment is false because "all the articles on this site, for example, undergo a peer review process" (but the review is limited to people who sign up to CMI's narrow religious Statement of Faith and who always reject any science claims that they think contradict the Bible - whilst making up alternative claims that don't)).
As the article describes, Paul Price also got into a catfight with Wikipedia over something to do with Jonathan Sarfati (who has also previously dissed Wikipedia in his writings). Price was indignant over this page, specifically its footnote 6 - even though the sentence in question is FACTUAL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati
"I raised a fuss at Wikipedia over Jonathan Sarfati’s biographical page including a defamatory quote from Eugenie Scott calling Refuting Evolution 2 a “crude piece of propaganda”. To make a long story short, I wound up getting banned indefinitely on that account ...".
Price comes across as a bigot extraordinaire. One who hates facts he doesn't like. And presumably wants them kept hidden from those who consult Wikipedia.
Wikipedia should of course not be regarded as 'infallible' - I can't think of anyone who treats it in that way.
Is this page acceptable to Price?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_ ... ernational