Wikipedia mirrors the cultural-at-large in ways that show mainstream biases. Recently I searched for "anti-Islam" on Wiki and was immediately redirected to "Islamophobia." The implication was that any criticism or negative assessment of Islam was a "prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear" of Islam or Muslims. Negative thoughts about Islam are forbidden by the Wikipedia thought police.

It works in reverse for America. Search for "Americanophobia" and you are immediately directed to the article on "Anti-Americanism". There can't be an exaggerated or extreme criticism of America. It's only natural that people should hate our nation and its values.

Of course, Robert Spencer's work is forbidden as a source of information on Islam and rarely found in related articles. Articles on Islam, Islamism, Muhammad, and Jihad have no references to any of his books. A few articles list his books for further reading but oddly enough these books don't qualify for citations. He is cited in the article on "Islamic terrorism" ... at least for now.

The Islamist denier, John Esposito, has dozens of references in in the main articles where Spencer is absent. Spencer is even absent in the "Criticism of Islam" article! Sam Harris gets a mention. And, of course, Esposito makes an appearance to dismiss the criticism of Islam. Often Wikipedia is good but once a clique of editors take over an article there is little one can do to reverse the damage.

Jason Pappas writes on cultural issues in his blog http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/.