I have used them ( wiki ) since inception as a 'bench-mark' information logger without bias.Wikipedia has over time become overridden with similar-self-entitled 'moderators' purporting to be neutral in the manner of... well, the original Encyclopaedias.There is clearly an agenda attached to the site. ( IF ) you know your environment ( History + ), then you'll know what i'm on about. Jim n' Larry might have had noble intensions, but then of course noblemen cannot protect their survivability when socio-political 'reform' is a current muscle of a minority. Follow the money is not a cliché, just do it. Look who majorly 'donates' money to the site. Whether you're this way or that way never matters. but monitoring who does the funding is always a good indicator as to what info you will receive within wiki.( I used to place small funds into wiki as thanks, but despite their persistent notion they need more donation, it further espouses a sense of abuse when your neutrality in it's self is bias is backed by a socio-political forecast. Irony of ironies.
