Wikipedia's credibility is compromised.

Criticism

WGreens contains relatively little criticism, while criticism (of ACL) makes up about half of WACL.

Specific section devoted to controversy and criticism

When challenged the WGreens editors say they do not permit a Controversy and criticism section on WGreens. Beyond that, it seems, even moderate controversy is 'moderated'. As a case in point, despite appeals, the WGreens editors would not permit any mention of Bob Brown's, Fellow Earthians speech to be included within WGreens. As an aside, 10 days later Bob Brown resigned. Did the Green-powerbrokers and WGreens-editors share the same 'commitment' to Bob Brown's visions? Meanwhile WACL has a Level Two (L2) headed section Controversy and criticism with four L3 headed subsections. Outside of that dedicated Criticism-section, for instance, under the L2 heading Some current issues on which ACL lobbiesboth the L3 headed Issues relating to censorship and L3 headed Issues relating to gay rights sections predominately detail further 'criticisms' rather than reflecting a neutral point of view (NPOV).

Emotive language, using the word Censorship as an example

- The Greens allege there is a problem with 'hate-media' and its impact on the Greens

- ACL allege there is a problem with 'media-violence' and its impact on children

In contrasting the two entries: With a single sentence in WGreens, Bob Brown refers to sections within the Australian media expressing criticism of Green policies or candidates, as "hate media", singling out the Murdoch Press in particular. Meanwhile in WACL, under an L3 heading, Issues relating to censorship(reverted back from previously less-emotive language) the WACL entry details why ACL is wrong. This takes the first 10 sentences of 240 words and seven citations. It is not until the 11th sentence where ACL is able to explain its concerns. If you are not convinced, do this: In 10 sentences, outline the problems with the media constraints proposed by the Green-supported, Finkelstein Inquiry. You might mention the community concerns as to how it will be administered and the impact on free-speech. (There are plenty of available sources). Then add Bob Brown's (above) allegations. Lastly upload it to the Greens' Wikipedia page under a L3 heading Issues relating to censorship. You might find criticism of Green censorship, is censored.

Perspective on the criticism

While recognising there are differences in the scale and role of the two organisations, WGreens, as an example, makes no mention of the current Greens' role regarding asylum seekers (or the carbon tax), let alone any criticism. Meanwhile on WACL, criticisms of ACL made by a 'theological student', an 'unnamed bishop', and 'a Christian' are detailed in breaking-news ( twitapedia? ) format with WACL recently being updated 56 times in 10 days - including a dodgy photoshopped image being added. Over the same period WGreens was also updated – twice - to adjust the name of the Queensland Legislative Assembly and to add the name of a newspaper.

Tabloid presentation

On WGreens, tabloid-journalism is not permitted by the editorial, gate-keepers. Meanwhile on WACL, for instance, there is an unfolding story involving billboards and condom ads, 30 people complaining, the source of the complaints, the billboards being removed, more on the source of the complaints, the billboards being reinstated, three experts giving commentary, etc. (in all, 316 words, 9 citations, under an L3 heading) Meanwhile ACL is condemned for not condemning Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, "who identified himself as a Christian".