Following on the themes of the last post.....
We all complain about Wikipedia because of its, often times, biased, unhistorical, unscientific, preference-manipulated, poorly composed, outdated, non-dated, regularly-un-sourced articles.
Yet we all keep going back there.
Because it can be used as a starting point, as many (not all) of its articles have links to legitimate external sources to back them up.
knowing that the first article you've sourced (the Wikipedia one) is flawed due to the biases, agendas or ignorance of its writer(s), why should you think the external source it links to (say, the New York Times or Newsweek) should be any different?
Do you think the "professional" writers at Mainstream Media publications are any less biased, agenda driven, egotistical or generally ignorant of various specific subjects than the "volunteers" at Wiki?
All Media exists to influence, not to inform.
So the next time you set down with the Washing Times, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, etc... in the morning or switch on Fox News, CNN, the History Channel, MTV, Discovery, BBC, etc... in the evening, just remind yourself that that is what Wikipedia would look like if it were a magazine or TV show....