HENRIETTA VAN LAER says No its not that having an agenda at all is a problem for Wikipedia Wikipedia has a very clear and unconcealable agenda prosocialists liberals greens and gays determined to vilify and demonize conservatives It is a completely biassed source Its articles on socalled leftwing parties are blatant whitewash while those on socalled rightwing parties are nothing but vilification most of it based on flimsy thirdhand 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 Wikispeak  different POV to us the Wikipolice  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 dont know what the term fat cat means in the USA but here in Britain it has a very specific meaning ie the people employed in the public sector who get salaries of  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 rightwing taxcutting party Many of them earn two or three times the average wage and like the fat  cats they get generous pensionpackages too Added to the votes of the millions of people who live longterm on state benefits this amounts to a huge vested interest in the socialist programme on the part of people who are neither honestJoe workers or lowpaid 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