`************************ 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.`