In order to maintain good relations with the press, I'll comment only delicately on this one.
In my opinion, the situation with the Bush and Kerry articles is routine at wikipedia. Yes, they are heavily edited. But there has been no real internal controversy about them. It's just that they are popular topics, and Bush is a controversial president (as was Clinton before him, except wikipedia did not exist then). I say: *yawn*
The reporters wanted to write an article about some astounding and unprecedented wikipedia controversy about the election. I was quoted selectively to make that case.
The article does not reflect badly on us or anything, but I can say that the reporters wrote the article that they wanted to write, my comments completely notwithstanding.
--Jimbo