Once I was disagreeing on the "fallacy" article in wikipedia (fr) with someone (I used to contribute), I created an article so that I could coined the "argumentum ad wikipediam" that says if somehting is on wikipedia it was true.

The other contributor made his point by pointing it is just an argumentum ad autoritatem.

Then I discovered that wikipedia was turning with NPOV (I had some fights) into an authority : the validation of a NPOV is made by a team of recurrent contributors who have bias (like believing that when someone claim to be a researcher in their page like them it must be true even if we cannot check the real identity of the person).

Every system of knowledge and cooperation tends to be plagued by the emergence of an "aristocracy" of self declared experts.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (Feynman).

On the other hand, for now WP is still sane you can still open a claim that this article is violating NPOV. Because that is the case.

Redactors will study your case you might even be winning because you are stating the obvious : it seems (in my opinion) it has nothing to do with an universal non biased knowledge.

Even if I had a grudge with WP that may back your claim, I won't actually agree with until you signal this article as NPOV.

Here is your entry point for making what is right : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view...