************************ HENRIETTA VAN LAER says, No,. it's not that having an agenda at all is a problem for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a very clear and unconcealable agenda [pro-socialists, liberals, greens and gays, determined to vilify and demonize conservatives]. It is a completely biassed source. Its articles on so-called left-wing parties are blatant whitewash while those on so-called right-wing parties are nothing but vilification, most of it based on flimsy third-hand sources and malicious allegations with no basis in fact. Instead of detailing their policies, Wikipedia provides a compendium of prejudice. The frequent denials that you have a point of view or that you are biassed are not at all convincing, particularly since the whole slant is maintained by a policy of rigorous censorship.
POV in Wiki-speak = different POV to us, the Wiki-police.
 I also get the impression that Wikipeople are pretty young. There is no sign of maturity or experience of the real world in their political views.
Under "conservative" we find the definition that these parties are merely in favour of the rich. How naive can you get? I don't know what the term "fat cat" means in the USA but here in Britain it has a very specific meaning i.e. the people employed in the public sector who get salaries of 10-15 times the average. Naturally they are inclined to vote Labour and can also legally donate large sums to that party. Then there are a million more people employed in useless quangos which would be abolished by a right-wing tax-cutting party. Many of them earn two or three times the average wage, and like the fat  cats, they get generous pension-packages too. Added to the votes of the millions of people who live long-term on state benefits, this amounts to a huge vested interest in the socialist programme on the part of people who are neither honest-Joe workers or low-paid. But Wikipedia is still living in a world of student politics, with a poster of Che Guevara on the wall, his hair streaming in the wind.