Is wikipedia only good for articles that deal with subjects the state doesn't object to?
It seems like history and any subject that is up for debate (state's side vs opposition) are not worth looking at. But articles on non-debateable subjects are, like how monkeyaudio got started and the specifics about that piece of software.
I didn't realise that wikipedia was controlled by the state.
The owner of wikipedia is an objectivist.
The owner could be a God, still, everyone is allowed to edit articles, so you get what you get. Subjective objectivity.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Pretty much. Wikipedia is not special in this regard, however; it is merely a less professional echo of the existing Progressive consensus in Western academia, with it's own younger userbase reflected by the sheer volume of pop cultural trivia articles relative to, say, ones on Paleolithic China or the economic history of Mali. The general intellectual environment is pretty much self-censoring; while Conservapedia is certainly wacky and has their own axe to grind on these issues, they have done a pretty good job pointing out the omissions and double standards Wikipedia practices regarding, say, Bush vs Obama.
MaikU:you get what you get.
That you do.