patrick.net

I've been using Wikipedia daily since 2006 or so and have not run into any such inaccuracy that I could identify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War is locked down to anonymous editing and there's a couple of things in there I think are overstatements or violate NPOV that I would qualify or reword.

One example is the article on FSB Ripcord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Fire_Support_Base_Ripcord&action=historysubmit&diff=354701438&oldid=351177506

The original author made this unqualified assertion:

"NVA losses at Ripcord delayed the Easter Offensive by a full year."

but actually in reading the cite given I saw that the author was just repeating another author's POV, which is still POV.

And it turned out that this POV is from one of the commanding officers of the FSB Ripcord action, so not exactly a neutral POV to begin with. I edited the article to more fully qualify where the assertion was coming from.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/Wiki-Wars-In-battle-to-define-beliefs-Mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-Wikipedia.html

A (very serious) story about a mormon battling for mormon truth on wikipedia. It should be noted that the Deseret News is owned by the mormon church and that just about every mormon I've ever met believes that their ever-changing religion is the right one - and that the rest of the world is full of sinners waiting to take them down.

I've found a few errors on minor topics I knew something about. But the beauty of Wikipedia is that I could address them myself.