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.
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