Wikipedia - an inevitable pitfall, or a controlled, vested interest?

[Michi]

As Wikipedia just turned 15 there are perhaps as many proponents as there are opponents.
The truthfulness of it's data has been discredited and claimed that "vested interests" edited related content to their liking.
My question is: Was Wikipedia doomed from it's initiation? Can an editable encyclopaedia be kept "truthful"?
How - could it work otherwise?

* Admin: Please change title - as needed.

[Carmody]

5 or 7 yeas ago, I tried to involve myself in Wikipedia edits which were truthful and centered, in the subject of emergent science, as connected to disputed science. In subjects that were labelled pusedo-science or crank science. I would come in with recent proofs and experiments that supported the original position on the new science.

My edits would be removed, every time.

So we are indeed looking at a controlled system, in my direct experienced opinion.

[Ewan]

Lloyd Pye gave up trying to correct errors, or add updates with new evidence, on his Wiki page, they were always deleted again. The main debunkers article still gets quoted every time as a rebuttal though, even though Lloyd thoroughly dissected it and showed all the errors within it.

[ozmirage]

I concur that Wikipedia has a cadre of "thought police."

An article about the "republican form" was deliberately blocked, with a hard link to "Republic" - which was NOT synonymous.

FWIW - the same article is on Conservapedia, unchanged, for the most part.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Republi..._of_government

It was to be expected. Less than 1 in 100,000 people in America know of the republican form or can accurately define it or its source. And that's the way [insert favorite conspiracy theory power bloc here] wants it.