Here is the opinion of an information professional (as in that is what they pay me for). It is my job to keep up with new developments in how information is acquired and disseminated to the public.
Wikipedia, like all self-proclaimed portals to knowledge had to go through some growing pains. Just a year ago, I noticed that there were several mistakes in some articles relating to history and a few other areas I examined, and based upon this sampling, I assume there were also mistakes in areas that I had not examined.
Upon going back to the areas where I had found errors of fact, i have discovered that while still not error free, Wikipedia as a source of quality information has improved over time.
Personally, I do not consider Wikipedia anything more than it claims to be, an online encyclopedia. Perhaps its greatest contribution to scholarship is the references, provided there are sufficient.
Naturally, if one desires to cite detailed and in-depth information about any given subject, an encyclopedia, be it online or in print, is not the proper source. Such information is mostly contained in higher quality books or peer-reviewed journals.
That being said, I feel that today, Wikipedia is a decent, and reasonably neutral resource for basic information.
I think it is important to remember when issues of bias come up, one must consider the source of the accusation and the agenda of the accuser, be it Muslim, Mormon, Millerite, Moderate, Monastic, Mercantile, Machiavellian or any other religion/ideology.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
™ Version 4.2
