I could not pass up pointing out what Derbyshire wrote because he pretty much echoes my own observations about Wikipedia:
That’s Wikipedia for you. They can say what they like about you, employing any level of sub-literacy for the purpose, and there isn’t a darn thing you can do about it. I had heard this, but just hadn’t believed they are really so brazen.When it comes to researching the biographies of living persons, or even dead ones, the Wikipedia is notorious for its bias and distortions and gaps and outright lies; it therefore should never be relied upon.
A good example of why Wikipedia is a source of info-trash came up when I recently needed to track down whether Kathryn Kuhlman at any time in her life had been located in Denver. This was the boring names, dates, and places kind of stuff that you should expect to be in an trustworthy encyclopedia. She's been dead since 1976, and you would think there has been enough time since then to get the basic facts about her life put together in some coherent manner. However, in this regard, the Wikipedia entry about Kuhlman turned out to be worthless. I mean it was laughable for its worthlessness, a tendentious, idiotic collection of scandal mongering and miracle debunking. I ended up having to consult the archives at Wheaton college to find out what I wanted to know.