Wikipedia is generally a good place to find information that is not controversial. However, its ability to accurately represent controversial topics is highly suspect.
There is no inherent model of multiple points of view in the single file, plain text.
The fallacy of appeal to authority makes Wikipedia seem authoritative and correct about controversial topics, and so it functions as propaganda.
A more accurate multiple belief modelling system would be more representative of what people actually believe. Such a system would contain formal (as opposed to informal) arguments, and would include input from anyone. Each argument would state which rules of inference it accepts, premises, conclusions, etc.
However, any system which accurately measured belief would be the holy grail for propagandists, and therefore, we can conclude that they are developing such systems, which indeed they are.
James Wales, creator of Wikipedia, was giving a talk at Barcamp Chicago 2006 in which I was present, and in reference to a particular argument, without providing any substantiation, he claimed that it was idiotic. As this provoked my criticism of Wikipedia, I asked him a question regarding the rederivability of "knowledge" on Wikipedia. I said (roughly), "Isn't any conclusion that does not follow from its premises idiotic". He paused longer than usual, (flourish: the gears of his mind clearly in motion), and said "That's what a programmer would think".
He tried to make himself out to be ?smarter?better educated? than everyone by saying how he'd studied Stochastic Differential Equations. However, I was not intimidated (incidentally having studied them myself). (Does that make me a mathematician?)
Lastly, at one point he accidentally admitted that "The Chinese system of Censorship is no different than our system of Moderation really". At which point a microemotion of horror momentarily crossed his face. The fact that he had just admitted that all these claims against the Chinese government for the censorship of information applied equally well to Wikipedia and I suppose the rest of the British/American censorship technologies didn't seem to register with anyone else, as I looked around: nothing but smiles and admiration.
There are people working on developing intelligent systems that employ reason instead of rhetoric, besides myself. Get in touch with me if you'd like to contact them.