[sandrobfc]

I'm surprised this doesn't happen way more often with many other pages. But we were all warned not to take Wikipedia as a single source of credible information. If bold statements or dubious information is not properly linked to credible sources (and even then...), don't take it as 100% true.

[point78]

Best way I've used Wikipedia is to find the source of whatever sentence I'm on and see how ridiculous that source is...a lot of Huffington post and trash mags stuff for example

[ameixaseca]

This happens way more often with many other pages as well. It just doesn't get the spotlight of media attention all the time.

[uranusjr]

Also worth noting is the GFW bans Wikipedia, limiting its popularity in China (most prefer Baidu’s equivalent, and those stay are comparably more liberal). So things don’t get that bad unless there’s an outside trigger to make average Chinese users take extra efforts accessing Wikipedia.

[freeflight]

I usually try to go through the effort of looking up the citations for particularly controversial statements.

But often that ends up being some book reference I can't find a free online version for.

[swebs]

Often bias on Wikipedia is more easily revealed by what was removed rather than what was added. If you really want to see what's been covered up, check the edit history and the talk page. "Wikilawyers" are good at invoking whatever community guideline they can to get things added or removed.