wikipedia is full of personal opinions, full of crap

When someone is editing wikipedia articles, s/he is not supposed to write any “personal opinion,” oh, really?

if someone writes “hitler is a killer,” is that a personal opinion? Of course, it is! To those who adore Hitler, they would think that Hitler is a hero. How about Osama bin Laden? Is he a terrorist or a leader of the Islamic world? I am sure that in his part of the world, he is worshipped by many followers as the leader, the hero, etc.

So therefore, it is quite clear that wikipedia’s no personal opinion is full of crap, it is so-called no personal opinion articles actually represent the opinions of those who edit the articles. Even for articles such as masturbation, it sure doesn’t represent the views of the Christians which still consider masturbation is unhealthy. So there you have, wikipedia can never to be neutral, it just has loads of craps that forced by the few who edit the articles.

wikipedia’s extended porngraphic article on “Oral sex in islamic law”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_sex_in_Islamic_law

check it out, who would have imaged an article name like that?! islamic law and oral sex?! what is next? anal sex with the pope?

Indeed, it is quite clear that wikipedia has many pornographic pictures, and articles, it is practically a free pornographic sex site for all the horny teenagers who have no money to pay for those sex sites, all children are welcome to check out the wonderful pornographic world of wikipedia, full of sex, free sex for all, no age limiatation at all.

Some libraries blocked some adult sites, well, welcome to browse wikipedia, even if you are under 18 or homeless, wikipedia is not blocked on any library computers.