What resources dost thou present as superior to Wikipedia?
Not that I disagree with all elements of your statement, but I'm interested in what you would deem a "valid source".
Wikipedia, in my opinion, is one of the best resources on the web.
True, it is not to be used as a source for formal research, but how many people here are conducting formal research of one variant or another?
I wouldn't know half the stuff I do today had it not been for Wikipedia.
I would recommend a book. The internet does not compare.
Besides forums, and blogs, the only thing decent about the internet is that one can find books.
Wikipedia, for the most part, is written by White racists for a White racist agenda. Pardon my White talk (I had spoken with them once upon a time), but the founder of Wikipedia is a "Libertarian." That should be enough said {though between you and me, I no longer know what that means--I mostly remember not siding with it. Though, I suspect that you have once sided with them (From what I remember, there are similarities for instance in the economic view)? In short however, they are a lot of ahistorical, unrealistic armchair thinkers (them not you).}
Oh and did I say racist! This is off-topic, but I decided to show that there would be a page on "Black Violence." Not explicitly, but there was on "Race and Crime in the United States.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Here's how it starts:
The relationship between
race and crime in the United States has been a topic of public controversy and scholarly debate for more than a century.
[1] Since the 1980s, the debate has centered around the causes of and contributing factors to the disproportional representation of racial minorities (particularly
African Americans, hence "Black crime") at all stages of the criminal justice system, including arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations.
[2]
Many theories of causation have been proposed, most of which assume predominantly social and/or environmental causes; while a few others argue for a reconsideration of the role of biology.
[3]
One does not need to read any further--and I haven't--though I can. Look at the first sentence--"scholarly debate" had been on the subject since post-enslavement. The second sentence quickly highlights African criminality. The final sentence vindicates biological considerations to African crime, quickly shaping the entire article into "Black crimes," a word actually used in this paragraph.
You can see who wrote this, for one can write the same paragraph with the same content, in a different way.
For instance:
Ever since African enslavement, race and crime has been improperly conflated. Worse, at the end of Jim Crow, in the 60s, more Africans have been imprisoned than before. Many theories are abound to explain this: one such a prominent theory is that Prison lobbyists partner with mainstream businesses to exploit Africans using the 13th amendment which allows prisoners to be legal slaves.
Get it? It's rare to get an a-political writing, and Wikipedia is certainly not a-political!