[throwawaygal7]

Wikipedia is most young peoples go to source for knowledge. The way important entries frame a subject is considered to be a neutral observers take, but they're often anything but when it comes to politics, history and philosophy. Often these important entries are the personal fife of one or more admin who structured things according to personal preference.

An easy way to see this is to look at a topic that is split in the academy along geographical lines - the entry in wiki will often favour whatever region the original cabal sided with and give the other short thrift.

Meeting a wikipedia admin in real life is often eye opening and explains some of these choices.

The old encyclopedias were more transparent; siding with their own cultures scholars in a way that was generally more uniform. Wiki masquerades as the final objective authority but has the same old issues burried and obscured.

Even an undergrad intro course on a given historical subject will often come into violent conflict with a given entry.

The best entries are scientific topics, like botany or physics - and this impression of mine is probbaly based on ignorance.