This editorial is ridiculous. What "bias" can there be when most of the articles have nothing to do with Student Senate. The front page has important information about things like the Credit/No Credit policy, upcoming events on campus, and student organizations. Even the few Student Senate-centric articles on WiKUpedia are more informative than the actual Student Senate Web site(which has a webmaster paid for by student fees), such as the section on required student fees (which was not available on the Student Senate site until it was copy-pasted from WiKUpedia last week).

I'm disappointed that the Kansan didn't take a more supportive stance and encourage students to contribute to the wealth of information already available on WiKUpedia.

The tone of this editorial makes me question whether the writer(s) have bothered to use WiKUpedia. It may be hosted under the Connect domain name, but in my experience it has served as a neutral — and useful — entity.

You claim that "all of the edits made to the pages — by anyone — are reviewed and deemed necessary or appropriate by the website’s six administrators, three of which are supporters of Connect."

You neglect to mention that any registered user — student, alum, faculty or community member — has the power to review and "deem necessary or appropriate" any article on the site. Anyone can change anything, and the wisdom of the group generally prevails, keeping things balanced.

This editorial comes off less like criticism and much more like a personal vendetta. Instead of attacking the project, I suggest getting on and writing a few articles.

I appreciate the Kansan's candor for looking at new resources for students on campus, I am highly disappointed in this editorial for several reasons:

1. This statement in the fourth paragraph...all of the edits made to the pages — by anyone — are reviewed and deemed necessary or appropriate by the website’s six administrators, three of which are supporters of Connect...is factually inaccurate.

Anyone in the community is encouraged to post any edit they feel is an improvement to a new article. The six administrators purpose is to help orient new editors, categorize articles, and edit the very few protected pages we have to prevent against vandalism. Anyone in the community who has asked to be a administrator has been granted that status.

1. We have been 100 percent transparent in the creation of this resource -- and the Kansan even admits that in its article. Please judge this project based on what it is actually doing and not what you suspect based upon its origins. What it is doing is providing a resource to students about student organizations (http://connectku.com/wiki/index.php/Cate...) , Student Senate (http://connectku.com/wiki/index.php/Stud...), and anything else any student wants to write about.

Last Tuesday, I gave a personal explanation of the editing process and how to make changes to Michael Wade Smith, a member of the United Students coalition. I am strongly encouraging any coalition or organization to write about their issues on WiKUpedia. Simply, If you are passionate about something at KU, I am asking you to tell people about it on the Wiki.

1. The Kansan comments that all of us are seniors, and while many of us are on our fourth year at the University, I think that I am the only one who is helping with this project planning on graduating this May. I promise, passionate people who share our values for transparency and objectivity will be involved next year and for years to come.

2. Lastly, the editorial suggests that we need objectivity (or objectivism, but I assume the board meant objectivity, and not the Ayn Rand philosophy) but failed to indicate a single concrete example where we haven't done so. Making broad claims without factual examples and evidence is something for gossip magazines and supermarket tabloids -- not reputable newspapers, and most certainly not for the "Student Voice" of the University of Kansas.

I think it would do readers a service to take a look at articles to judge for themselves about this new resource and its potential "bias."

Queers and Allies: http://connectku.com/wiki/index.php/Quee...

Basketball Camping: http://connectku.com/wiki/index.php/Bask...

White Owl: http://connectku.com/wiki/index.php/Whit...

I am highly disappointed in the Kansan's editorial for its (1) factual inaccuracies, (2) wanton assumptions, and (3) lack of foresight to see what the resource could be to KU students.

Please take a look at WiKUpedia and decide for yourself.

www.connectku.com/wiki

Wouldn't ANY group that put together the Web site be, by definition, pursuing some agenda? And as far as I know, editing/adding to the site isn't limited to just the one student coalition. I don't think it was meant to be a propaganda tool; if anything, Connect should be praised for their foresight.

After rereading this, I also have to point out that it's 1) very poorly written and edited, and 2) offers no real solutions or alternatives. All it does is suggest some hidden agenda on the part of Connect.

As a journalism student, former Kansan writer, and co-founder of the WiKUpedia Project, I am deeply disturbed by this editorial. This piece of journalism would be laughable if it weren't so shortsighted and cynical in regard to something we care deeply about.

We have spent countless hours working on this resource for students, faculty, and community members. The wiki has grown quickly, with with useful information provided about various aspects of campus. For example, yesterday was the last day to drop a class with a 50% refund. We had that on our event calendar and included a link to the Registrar's Web site for more information. This fact-less editorial is a slap in the face to our hard work.

The first tenant of the Society of Professional Journalists' ethics code is "Seek Truth and Report It." That is the mission of the WiKUpedia Project. It's unfortunate that this isn't always the case with our student newspaper.

This piece represents the feelings of the entire editorial board? That's a shame. I'd think at least someone of the four or five people who comprise that would do some quality research before publishing hypocritical tripe like this.

I am the "sixth administrator", the mere "president of the KU Chess Club", and I actually joined to provide technical insight. Before you speak about me like that, perhaps it would be good to contact me first.

"Seek Controversy and Exploit It"

I'll keep posting it until I am given an explanation why WiKUpedia is an evil entity with no checks and balances, while the Kansan removes all statements it feels attack it.