It certainly does and it never claims otherwise. However, even though it shows examples that are biased mostly to one side it points out and describes the techniques used to create the bias, so you're free to use the knowledge gained to help yourself recognize the other sides attempts at creating a bias.
What I meant is that it points out biased articles in a way that itself is biased. To be more specific, it seems to have a pretty strong pro-Israeli bias.
I know what you meant: The examples the article cites are biased - most of them stem from one side of the conflicts. The article actually discloses the authors affiliations at the end. But the techniques it shows are not only used by one side and the article never claims that they are. So in itself it is educating the reader to keep an open eye whenever they read a (wikipedia) article. It helps you to avoid biased articles from both sides and that seems to be the authors primary intention.
That is a pretty useless^H^H^H^H^H^H^H subjective statement. The author is clearly trying to alternate between examples for pro Israeli and pro Palestinian bias.
Well the user's name is Rav Papa, who is a well known Jewish roman-era scholar, which is one tactic he doesn't mention, press all your advantages, usernames are a great way to show fain to be one side but really be the other.
Lol, I wish you had looked at my comment history before you had said that. ( I too have been outed as a JUDEENRAT).
Personally I think he was attempting to be impartial though towards the end it became apparent that he was more pro-BDS than peace (now you know how I feel about this).
