Really general articles, like [[global warming]], do have more fundamental problems
As a wikipedia user (edited only typos & punctuation), I don't see these problems. I think http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming is very informative and reasonable, more so than any other page I can find immediately with google. The talk page is also very good.
Can you be more specific about the problems you think it has? I have trouble seeing wikipedia as anything other than a mind-bogglingly amazing 'shit i woke up in the future' thing :-)
As a wikipedia user (edited only typos & punctuation), I don't see these problems. I think http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming is very informative and reasonable, more so than any other page I can find immediately with google. The talk page is also very good.
Can you be more specific about the problems you think it has? I have trouble seeing wikipedia as anything other than a mind-bogglingly amazing 'shit i woke up in the future' thing :-)