[coconutt2000]

Wikipedia is a good source of information, but like most sources - one must be wary of embedded propaganda in politically sensitive topics.

[Sols]

You have to look at who has the interest in keeping each article edited. Only someone deeply involved in karate will be interested in maintaining karate articles. The same for bicycles, electronics, politics, and pedophilia.

I trust a karate, bicycle or electronics expert or hobbyist to attempt to give me useful information on their hobby. I am wary of the information in political articles because of the neccessary opinion involved in political interest.

Anyone who has the time or inclination to edit a pedophilia article should immediately be distrusted.

[twigs]

I've found it to be an EXCELLENT source of info. I use it often. I've learned to be careful, as I am with all Internet info, but I'm very sorry to hear about this. These people (pedophiles) are trying to do their best to ruin our culture so that they can run amok with their filthy pleasures.

[MikefromOhio]

Exactly.

I actually used Wikipedia as a source for some of my college papers, and generally everything jived.

If something didn't sound right, I found another source for that information.....

But I mean come on now, let's not act like there isn't ANY good info on the site, because there is.

I mean where else are you going to learn that there are 10 styles of Lightsaber Combat or a list of certain individuals from whatever college.... :-)

[Bluegrass Conservative]

. . . one must be wary of embedded propaganda in politically sensitive topics.

Just to counteract, I've been known to edit some of there articles with my own "spin". :-)

[SuzyQue]

. . . one must be wary of embedded propaganda in politically sensitive topics.

Right you are. There are very few sources that I would accept without question. Bias of some sort is pretty much unavoidable.