Even entries that are not overtly political have glaring errors, e.g. the wiki on my favorite novel, Invisible Man.
Forget the fact that it is replete with grammatical and spelling errors, even the purported facts are wrong.
Though Raplh Ellison is seen as a Harlem Renaissance writer by many, the themes from Invisble Man break away from the movement's major theme of social accepatance and hope for the future.
Really?
I suppose you could say "some" consider Ralph Ellison to be part of the Harlem Renaissance.
Just as "some" would consider Richard Nixon to have been the sixteenth president of the United States, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire to have won WWI.
There are some people that believe lots of inaccurate information, but to say that "many" people believe Ralph Ellison was a Harlem Renaissance writer-even though he was merely five years-old when this artistic and cultural movement began, and had published his seminal work of fiction fifteen years after it had ended-is not only misleading, but is demonstrably false.
This is something that anyone who had a copy of the Norton Anthology of African-American Literature could tell you, but it's information that this brilliant Wikipedian apparently wasn't aware of.
I couldn't even begin to list all of the misinformation about the outer boroughs of New York City-in the Wiki about that subject-so I won't.
Anyway, sorry for the tirade.
It just annoys me when people cite Wikipedia articles as if they are authoritative sources on a particular subject.
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
LOL -- I haven't checked, but I would hope that Hillary's claim that she is named for Sir Edmond Hillary is in her bio --- when in fact, when Hillary was born, Edmond Hillary was an obscure bee keeper.