It is helpful that on Wikipedia the editorial process is largely transparent, so the question "how did it get like this?" can actually be answered. Wikipedia is not reliable, but it turns out that how paper encyclopedias and newspapers were written was similarly susceptible
In the case of newspapers probably yes. In the case of encyclopedias, I think not. There are severe problems with the Wikipedia coverage of philosophy which you wouldn't find here, for instance. And so for the humanities generally. When I make this point on Wikipedia, the answer is usually that Wikipedia is for pop culture, whereas encyclopedias are for 'proper culture' or 'high culture' or whatever. I don't really understand this distinction.
Meanwhile, a quick test for line wrap. asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf
Peter