If you were to edit the Wikipedia page for, say, Submarine - then your editing will likely remain unless it was in error.

Editing the pages on living people is a different matter.

I made a minor adjustment [which was factual and non-derogitory] to a politician's page and within hours, my editing had been removed and the page returned to the original.

Dear Tamsin, undoubtedly your analysis of Wikipedia is accurate.Neverthelees, unless one is looking for unattributable background information, it is not a safe source for scholars. It may be old-fashioned, but surely we would be better sticking to publications, whether books or journals, or internet sites whose scholarly reputation is impeccable.
Of course, in using the above, we must not suspend critical thinking, anymore then we would in using Wikipedia.
Though it is useful for general knowledge.

Since anybody can edit any entry on Wikipedia then those that have an opinion (or agenda) can also include their beliefs in their edits.

Whenever there is anything of a controversial nature there is sure to be those that want their opinions expressed - factual or not.

While submarine is not a controversial topic try abortion, hamas, Vatican, or any world leader.

You can put your own name in Wikipedia. You can include any lifetime accomplishments or achievements and anything else you might think would be interesting to others. But what are you going to do when somebody edits your entry and says (truthfully) that you did not pay your mobile phone bill in Dec, 2001 or you hit and damaged somebody's parked car and did not leave your name and phone number. I am willing to bet you will want to change things back to the way you originally pictured yourself.

I don't think Wikipedia is the only forum where authors advance an "Agenda". Academic journals are as prone to this technique as any other media. At least Wikipedia leaves all articles open to rebuttals and corrections and has constructed devices to (eventually) let the truth emerge.Some call that democracy.

An example of possible bias is the fact that of the 7 entries on "Oil Shale" only 1 really details the devastating environmental effects. Indeed, if you accidentally type "Shale oil" (the other way around) it seems "Big Oil" have diverted that alternative phrase to go straight to the "Oil Shale extraction procedures" page, which details all the wonderful ways we can extract this filth.

In this way it bypasses the introductory "Oil Shale" page with its damaging paragraph on the environmental effects and link to the full article on the environmental devastation.

I have noted with interest the battles over the peak oil page, and how many times the techno-utopian dreamers have tried to insist that mitigating peak oil will be a breeze — without acknowledging the Hirsch report or Australian Senate inquiry which basically concluded that an imminent peak oil production would require an emergency economy that we normally think of as a "war-time economy"... a war with our addiction to oil.

So, while I love open source projects which I see as a "virtual commons" and agree with the goals of Wikipedia, use with care.

WIKIPEDIA IS CRAP.

i wont give you my name, but type me into it and you will find i am on the BRW Rich list, am one of the most prominent entreprenuers in the country, etc etc.

They got my hometown right and my date of birth, but everything else was concocted by who knows, and it completely over the top.

If average joe like me can have many exaggerations and errors, imagine what other crap there is. And people doctor it to suit themselves.

if it had restrictio