I've been to Wikipedia a couple of times. I thought it was edited by anyone who signed up to be an editor. I would never use it for fact-checking. I assumed it was biased to begin with. It's not much more than a semi-informational blog.
Agreed. I see Wikipedia as a haven for amateur, untrained, wanabee “Gonzo” journalists, who without the education, writing skills or the “Gonzo”, are nothing more than frustrated bloggers suffering delusions of grandeur.
But now that I think on this a bit more, how are the "editors" at Wikipedia any different from the "journalists" for the NY Times, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, CBS News, etc.? Those dinosaur media outlets don’t have much in the way of fact checkers either.
Wikipedia; "entertaining but not a reliable source". Who cares?