Despite being an admin over on Wikipedia I have had to largely give up editing topics that tend to fall within its remit, as it was just too stressful. I’ve had a number of sympathetic emails from other editors who have also largely had to give up and some from others who are still working to address what they perceive as a broader Skeptical agenda at work (I don’t get involved in politics/personalities so can’t really comment about that, although I have seen some things that made me raise an eyebrow or two). All I can do is wish them luck with putting some balance back into a swathe of articles but every step is going to be a fight and I am sorry to say I have others things to do than spend hours “fighting fires” for little, or no, gain.

The big articles will survive in one form or another but will largely be neutered and the smaller ones will be chipped away at until they are an easy mark for deletion.

All I can suggest is a separate wiki to give a balanced and comprehensive look at a range of phenomena (and I do mean balanced). The Red Pill has a lot of potential but is currently underused.

Anyway that is just my point of view from being involved with a few “skirmishes” on the fringes of what looks like a larger “battle”, one I’m afraid I don’t have the stomach for. I’m sure different people will see things differently but, what I do know is, what I can conclude from my experience is more optimistic than some people’s opinions (and those folks tend to have been more deeply involved in events).

But its often a good place to start

I agree it’s good for general information about topics, but I also agree that a person should watch for any “political” or “subjective” editing or point of view.

The good thing about Wikipedia is one can always change what’s in there.
The bad thing is one ma have to do it repeatedly.

Someone should also think about reprinting “Strange Creatures…”!