"Can't someone else do it?" 
Wikipedia is simply once source of information, and a very good one. Like anything, it is best to get information from multiple sources and then come to your own conclusion. Yes, some entries on Wikipedia are biased, but so is most everything else. It is your job to make up your own mind based on the best available evidence.
Wikipedia is not even the same resource from day to day. Left and right fight back and forth over any point and create controversies where none should exist.
Of course we are talking about millions of people who actually believe Bush was "selected not elected".
Exactly!
It is not so much the bias that concerns me - it's the people who are behind it - the enforcers of bias. They also infect more than "some" entries. You will find that there are virtually no articles on wikipedia of any substantial size that don't have a biased admin closely guarding them. If you take a little time to research exactly who those admins are you will find that they tend to be the scummiest elements of the internet.
It is not an exaggeration to say that Wikipedia is literally owned by a professional pornographer and controlled by a tight-knit group of homosexuals and perverts. If you feel that you can avoid these elements and glean something useful from wikipedia articles, then go ahead and use it as a source. My concern is for the unsuspecting parents who let their kids go onto wikipedia, completely oblivious to the fact that they're coming into contact with hundreds of internet predators and perverts who happen to also have the title "Administrator" next to their names.
"Can't someone else do it?"