It is too difficult to correct negative text on the Wikipedia article without all the time in the world to defend your edits. It's probably better to counter the list of negative points with a list of equally positive points, citing links esp. links to credible sources in the MSM. Strong, incontestable sourcing will allow a contribution to stand up against the political bias on the site (WP NPOV--HA!)
Unfortunately, I think most people here (including myself) believe the site is a total loss, and therefore won't spend the necessary time to learn the site's etiquette, and therefore will rarely make a significant contribution. Having said that, my hat is off to you FReeper/Wikipedians--you guys keep the conservative-related articles from degrading into a liberal love-in. Thank you!
For a few moments I didn't know what you meant. I thought you meant my edits. I personally haven't edited anything about FR at the Wikipedia site. I now see that you mean, whenever anybody edits an article or entry, they usually have to have a source or citation to back up their claim. And, yes, it certainly would take a lot of time and energy to correct every inaccuracy about FR on the site, as well as to put up positive points. I hope there are some people here with the time and energy to do that.