Wikipedia is GREAT for what it is, a community-sourced information system with limited oversight, but it’s really NOT a great definitive source BECAUSE of that.
I have a couple of Wikipedia articles, and the biggest hassle is the dance through the html. The second biggest hassle is making sure you can prove you have the right to pictures, which may be copyright materials. In one article I wrote, I was reduced to including a family Christmas picture, because the professional-quality headshot was from a corporate webpage, and I didn’t want to cause any ruckus.
In a far more humorous vein, Uncyclopedia parodies Wikipedia, and anyone can play. I doubt the SJW (or whoever) would bother to go there, but if they had senses of humor, they would.
In fact, I might just make an entry there myself today, if I can do that between tracking down why Amazon booted my last review, picking up my lawn mower from the repair shop, getting my drugs from the pharmacy, and finishing at least one more book in my TBR&R stack.
BTW: if you already had Uncyclopedia bookmarked (as I did), they have changed the url. Just google the word, and the new reference pops right up. The old link gives scary “it ain’t here no more” warnings.

Hey Old NFO;

I have used Wiki for my postings, especially my “Monday Music” posting that I do. I have never used them for a political post so I wasn’t aware that they had a bias. Logically I should have known better because wiki allows people to “self edit” because I have used that feature to fix articles relating to Ford Tauruses and Atlanta Assy Plant because I KNOW the subject matter. I have bookmarked “Infogalactic” and will use them from now on. Ed is correct from the Sarah quote that we can’t cede social media to the SJW’s because that territory will have to be recaptured. As George Patton said “I don’t like to pay for the same real estate twice”.