DNC thinks Wikipedia isn't biased enough for them

Conservatives know that Wikipedia, which bills itself as the world's encyclopedia, for political information is often the playground for the left. Of course, Wikipedia makes some attempt to keep information factual, and since anybody can update information, the idea is that if someone makes a highly unfactual post, others can correct it.

Still, Wikipedia is very friendly to liberals. Even if you don't buy that there are major players in the administration of Wiki who are biased to the left, it is clear that factual news and information that plays to the left is not being filtered in any way.

But suppose we said that Wikipedia was, as it claimed, an unbiased, netroots-driven bastion of truth?

Then what do we make of the DNC? Apparently, Wikipedia is still a bit too focused on the truth for what they have in mind. So rather than simply overwhelming the mods at Wiki with their incessant political posts, they've decided to launch their own version of Wikipedia, which they are calling McCainPedia:

"McCainPedia" compiles DNC research on the presumptive Republican nominee under topics like "Economy," "Ethics" and "Security" and targets McCain's "empty rhetoric" on Iraq as well as his role in the Keating Five scandal of the early 1990s. Users are also invited to access DNC video from both YouTube and FlipperTV, the Democratic Party’s archive of campaign tracking video.

In launching the site, the DNC claims that anyone can research and share the material.

OK, so far there is zero difference between Wikipedia and this new site. So why duplicate the effort? The next sentence explains:

Unlike Wikipedia, on which the site is modeled, edits can be made only by DNC staff — not members of the public.

Can't have any of those unbiased moderators around fixing the errors and lies. Better to have the paid DNC staff provide the "truth", much the same way as was done in the book 1984 by the "Ministers of Truth".

The DNC has the rhetoric down:

“This allows us to fully validate all of the information that appears, ensuring accuracy and reliability,” the “About” section of the site says. Instead, the site is “run by the DNC’s Research, Communications, and Internet teams.”

Given the blatant lies in the official DNC advertisements (like their selective quoting of parts of a McCain speech which completely altered it's meaning, and their more recent absurd claim that McCain's prediction of Victory in Iraq was "settting a timetable"), it is hard to imagine anybody falling for the line that the DNC is more trustworthy than the Wikipedia staff when it comes to validating claims.