I view political articles on Wikimedia's Wikipedia similar to how i view media sources such as Radio Free Asia. There is really nothing democratic or open about the political content you will find there. There are even seemingly obsessive accounts with thousands of edits a day that may just be government or think-tank managed accounts, reinforcing content favorable to US foreign policy goals. I see Wikipedia as kind of a good jump off point to see what the US State Dept and CIA position is on some issue, and then continue my investigation from there.

If everyone googled about what is going on some part of the world, almost all would read the Wikipedia article. If the Wikipedia article differed in any major way from what the Pentagon's goals were, well... you can see how that would be a problem for the Pentagon. If you allow yourself to believe that the goals and movements of the Pentagon are not always grand, you can see how the political content there can more or less act as a weapon of war. Not really an exaggeration to say that, i really don't think...

I feel like a lot of people just aren't catching on to how tightly managed US media is when it comes to "hostile" or "aggressive" actions of others, "democracy", "brutal dictators", etc. in other parts of the world. People are really still ingesting these corporate news sources with anything other than the utmost suspicion.