wikis

I can admit to looking at wikipedia every now and then to find some information, but generally only if the information is frivolous or quickly satisfies a fleeting curiosity I might have (example, what are the names of the seven robots Bruton destroyed in Astro Boy episode "The World's Greatest Robot"?). I would never source it in an academic sense, because even though I haven't come accross many glaring errors in wikipedia - excluding the terrible grammar and poor sentence and paragraph construction that plagues wikipedia - I did take the time to read a few "history" tags for a number of articles with a charged political dimension (eg Russian Revolution, or Israel/Palestine). Wikipedia seems to me a battleground where people try their best to shape the an article according to their ideological agenda. In la-la land, this would be a wonderful thing, where people of polar opposite opinions and all those between create something that is magically "neutral" and "truthful". But in the real world what actually happens are endless "edit war", resulting in mangled, poorly organised and ultimately poorly written articles with a "NOPV" obsession. Non Point of View? How can one not have a "point of view"? About anything? Neutrality is neutering. If I want an understanding of a particular topic, I want the information I find to have a point of view, and not hide it. I hate nothing more than high-brow claims to objectivity, or the striving for it. Nothing produced can lay claim to objectivity - not world book, or britannica or wikipedia, and the whole concept should be jettisoned. Get off the damn fence! Did I get off track here? ha ha