Don’t go to Wikipedia looking for reliable information on Cuba, as the Cuba page has become a battleground for ideologues, as apparently the pages addressing a number of other controversial subjects.
Traditional encyclopedias have articles reviewed and edited by folks determined to be knowledgeable on the subject by the encyclopedia purveyor. I find it amusing that Wikipedia is now having to assign an “’mediation cabal’ — an informal mediator –“ to referee the Cuba discussion. The “cabal” resigned after “editors” were mean to them.
So the Cuba page, at least, and apparently those dealing with abortion and other controversial subjects have turned into a discussion forums.
It really is too bad, I think. And I know that a recent study (all “studies” should also be looked at with a jaundiced eye, for everyone has a point of view) concluded that there are about the same number of errors in Wikipedia and the encyclopedia that was examined, but I suspect that as more and more people learn that they can post supposed facts to Wikipedia the more unreliable it will become.
Having said all of that, I know what “open source” software is, the concept behind it, and I think it is a great concept. But software can be editing and augmented by enthusiasts and other enthusiasts can take the changes or leave them. An encyclopedia is quite different. Just ask John Seigenthaler or the congressional staffers caught sexing up their bosses bios.