Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  While Wikipedia has some worthwhile information, it is considered less than reliable by many people. Creation science and the Intelligent Design movement are the recipients of substantial bias from there . One of its numerous problems is illustrated by hoaxes. Almost anyone can contribute and edit articles, but only in theory. I have heard from creationists who tried to correct some of Wickedpedia's false information, only to have the edits snap back as if they had never been made. Outright hoaxes are more likely to fly under the radar. Image of nonexistent Jar'Edo Wens generated with AI at NightCafe A tiny entry was made about Jar'Edo Wens, a deity of Australian aborigines. It existed on Wikipedia for several years  and was cited  by users. But he never existed. (By the way, does anyone know if the AI program I used for the graphic got anything right according to aboriginal culture regarding this character? AI has substantial difficulties as well ,

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is amusing in attacks on creationists when believers in fish-to-fool evolution claim to use peer-reviewed scientific journals for information, then proceed to throw links to Wikipedia at us. Anyone who uses it can see frequent requests for users to chime in and improve articles. And donate money. Wikipedia is not exactly reliable as a source of information*, probably because many articles can be edited by the public. One ludicrous article  admits that Wikipedia has errors but is up to the readers to check out the sources and make up our own minds. Yeah, sure. Some of their articles have huge numbers of references to weed through — and omits important evidence when it does not fit the worldviews of their writers! Despite its claim of neutrality, Wikipedia is extremely biased in some areas. Frustrated woman studying at computer, Pexels / energepic Wikipedia says it is unbiased. Well, sure. They can say  anything. But the facts do not support the claim. I freely