A good rule of thumb is if the topic does not concern current politics or other hot-cake issue, Wikipedia is a usually good source of common facts (i.e. ones th

A good rule of thumb is if the topic does not concern current politics or other hot-cake issue, Wikipedia is a usually good source of common facts (i.e. ones that would not require very deep knowledge to understand or present properly) and a decent source of links to more in-depth treatment of the topics. Not always true, but very frequently is. However, when you approach a topic having to do with everyday politics, the neutral point of view is nothing but a dream. A noble dream, but a dream nonetheless. There would be facts omitted, there would be facts presented in a distorted fashion, there would be biased sources quoted, there would be claims that the source does not support, there would be unsourced claims, there would be biased and agenda-driven language. There be dragons. And that is just from well-meaning (and probably even supporting the NPOV dream if asked) volunteers, I am not even talking about paid and conflict-of-interest (i.e. editing page about oneself or one's boss) editors which exist too. Such is human nature. It is possible to fight it, and sometimes it is possible to win, but it is hard, annoying, exhausting and demands a lot of time. So, a lot of people don't have time or desire to get into this. Which means, be careful with Wikipedia pages that are about current politics.