Nah. Wikipedia is generally good, but the whole problem of people protecting their little corner of it as if it's their own personal project is very true.
I once deleted a little section of an article because it was some stereotype with zero foundation, and the only source cited was a random little book written in the 1910s presenting racial stereotypes as the truth. I deleted just one sentence from a long article, and cited the reason being that there's zero truth to the statement and the only basis was some 100 year old book. I tracked down the original book on Google Books and it was a throwaway statement passed as mere hearsay. No other reference exists to the concept in English or the language of the target country.
Within a couple hours, it was back up, and stated that the incorrect stereotype is still true, and most popularly known from the 1910s.
I once deleted a little section of an article because it was some stereotype with zero foundation, and the only source cited was a random little book written in the 1910s presenting racial stereotypes as the truth. I deleted just one sentence from a long article, and cited the reason being that there's zero truth to the statement and the only basis was some 100 year old book. I tracked down the original book on Google Books and it was a throwaway statement passed as mere hearsay. No other reference exists to the concept in English or the language of the target country.
Within a couple hours, it was back up, and stated that the incorrect stereotype is still true, and most popularly known from the 1910s.
Absolutely bizarre.