Fixing Wikipedia articles is often impractical, because there are users who know the arcane Wikipedia rules better than you do and who can always give some sort of reason as to why your change can't be accepted. And even if the user is wrong, without a thorough knowledge of arcane Wikipedia rules, you'll have no way to prove that the user is wrong, so you'll be stuck.
I remember reading a wikipedia article that was really one sided and sounded like it was written by a total fanboy/fangirl of a thing.
I tried to change a part in the introduction, to remove unsubstantiated claims, and my changes were immediately reverted. I tried making a different change, again an immediate revert.
Then I looked at the history, and I saw that my changes weren't the only ones being reverted. Apparently one user watched the page and immediately reverted all changes that weren't 100% praise.
At that point I realized that Wikipedia is helpless against a dedicated editor with an agenda, and I take all Wikipedia articles with a huge grain of salt -- what you get to read is chosen by the most persistent editor
Seen the same thing, specifically from a political level. These people may end up being the downfall of Wikipedia. I trust it far less now because I've seen this many times when looking in the history.
