[wolverine876]

> I'm optimistic about Wikipedia. The popularity means if an important fact is missing it will get added, and the entrenched interests mean the fact will get reverted if it isn't balanced.

That was the hope for Wikipedia, but my experience editing it is the opposite: Editing disagreements are interminable, enormously time-consuming, legalistic free-for-alls, and whoever is most willing and able to spend their days fighting them, wins. That is usually the more radical or politically motivated person or party, some of them clearly acting for outside interested parties. The editors often participate and support such people.

You can find many descriptions of the same thing. Just search around.