[ErikVandeWater]

First, your statement that he "cares so much about the bias he can't be bothered to find it" is objectively false. He found two examples in the summary, which is what 80% of people will read, and will anchor interpretation for all readers. Bias in the summary is much more significant than bias in the main article, even if it returned to even-handed interpretation later.

Also to your point: "This is largely how people operate today, they start with what they want to believe then they go looking for it."

If he went looking for it, he certainly found it very easily. I would agree with you if he had found the bias in niche topics and in later sections of articles much less likely to be read. But when the articles with the most traffic and most contributors demonstrate bias, its clear there is a problem.

[eldavojohn]

Again I requested concrete examples. Please post what he said and what's actually word for word in the summary you are claiming is biased. It's really easy to talk abstractly and say whatever you want. I think you'll find that once you try enumerate this, it's hard to defend Sanger's assertion that the articles are clearly biased towards liberal positions.

[ErikVandeWater]

You did not request concrete examples.

[eldavojohn]

I said:

> Why don't you quote his article and then the wikipedia "interpretation" that is "very biased"? Let's take concrete examples.

That's a request for concrete examples. Regardless, why don't you provide concrete examples of the liberal bias in those articles to back up your claims?

When did HN become worse than reddit?

[ErikVandeWater]

Since I know you to be a respectable and upstanding member of society, I assume all of your requests come with the word "please." Or at the very least "I request."

Your use of the word "Let's" was either a suggestion or an order. Based on your tone it appears to have been an order XD