Anything politically related in Wikipedia tends to be awful.
A big problem is that editors, (many who apparently have nothing going on in their lives beyond the thrill of ruling over an HTML page) carve out fiefdoms where they control a subject matter and nobody is allowed to challenge them on their ‘turf’ in this ‘open’ encyclopedia. And the biggest of these ‘encyclopedia turf’ gangs runs the political articles.
A favored tactic is to frontload articles of subjects they don’t like with negative information or descriptors. Compare the openings of the Breitbart, Conservapedia, One America News Network, and Fox News articles with Daily Kos, Rational Wiki, Democratic Underground, Huffington Post, MSNBC, and CNN articles which are generally missing any attacks or criticisms. The CNN article actually accuses them of being too nonpartisan.
If you call them on it. Like for example asking why Fox is repeatedly attacked in its lead but MSNBC isn’t they throw up a google result from MSNBC or the NYT as proof of a ‘consensus’ and shutdown any further discussion.
Nonpolitically its a mixed bag. The science articles tend to be okay in terms of accuracy but are often terribly written in terms of comprehensibility. Some of the bias you see in the politics sometimes mixes into the history articles. Sometimes you’ll get this weird obscure aspect or opinion of a subject elevated in an article. Like you’ll have an article about a famous movie or book and then out of nowhere an opinion by some Marxist-feminist blogger nobody’s ever heard of has a prominent place in it.
My advice would be to keep your wallets closed when they come rattling the tincan and remind them until they make some progress fixing some of these problems.
