Is Wikipedia, through the actions of a few editors, purposefully biased in not allowing the options of alternative view points (especially non-US centric) through censorship? Does the citation of secondary resource instead of primary citations run contrary to long-held practice in academia to ensure a credible, unbiased, and accurate reflection of issues? 

 ::* http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/is-wikipedia-politically-biased.html 
 ::* http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia 
 ::* http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/is_wikipedia_biased 
 ::* http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1464270&show;=abstract 
 ::* http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/06/neutrality.html 
 ::* http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aea/aer/2012/00000102/00000003/art00059 

 Is this another example where credible, validated alternative perspective provided by expert authors with insight and understanding of a phenomenon and issues skewed and purposefully censored to reflect the views of a particular cohort?