The link points to the abstract of the book of the same topic. When one realises that wikipedia only uses (as a policy) what is already published, it simply is

The link points to the abstract of the book of the same topic. When one realises that wikipedia only uses (as a policy) what is already published, it simply is an aggregation of already publicly existing information and not a gathering point of all information -- and it's relationship is not really a mystery how it relates to the general population who've probably surmised that to be the case. Other relationships fall mostly on the angst a user / content submitter might have via the fact some very self important people have gravitated to it who like nothing better than wield the power to dismiss content because ... I think it's best described as simply -- a mostly reliable search result one hopes the half hearted search engine will kick out on the first page of results. I use wikipedia as a guide to watch movies ... no entry I consider very suspect and probably actively avoid, an entry but with no plot entry or the sparsest of plot information, I won't be making plans to catch it from the start, maybe flick over for a snippet during an ad break (unless tv channels have decided to sync their ads, then nope I'll just take the time to do something else while ads are on,), and entry with a detailed plot will guide me if it appeals to me and watch accordingly ... again what is written might not be anything near what the movie is, some people miss the details or simply don't understand. Disinformation is a problem because it readily lands in quotable literature ... sadly an argument to disprove various in error facts might not readily be available in any current literature -- but that's wikipedia's lot.