Wikipedia is one of the most comprehensive encyclopedias in existance, it is a good foundation and starting point, a springboard into more specific information. It could potentially also provide people access to very detailed and specific information, this is and could increasingly be, of great importance to everyone. But due to such policies as the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) that privileges "mainstream points of view" and referencing policies that are biased towards mass media sources, the inclusion of detailed and specific information is often denied. I may seem confrontational at times but I assure you I'm just trying to generate some dialogue on such matters in the interest of improving Wikipedia. I don't like the idea of it becoming stagnant and holding policies up as absolute.
An example of whats wrong with Wikipedia can be found in that an article about an alcohol advertisment noitulovE, can become a featured article and yet far more significant, yet obscure, subject matter is seemingly ignored. Wikipedia could be used to shed light on obscure subject matter and bring it the attention and awareness that it deserves as mainstream bias can distort a subjects true significance. Despite these failings however, in general, I believe wikipedia hosts less bias, more usefulness and far greater comprehensiveness than any other source of information available to us today.
I also sometimes wonder why we persist with including critics reviews and opinions on WP. These people are most often paid to give their opinion and it is unreliable. Also, by its very nature opinion is just that, personal opinion! Not appropriate for WP. Needless to mention the fact that judging artwork as 'good' or 'bad' is a time wasting endeavor. My impatience for editors who consistently tag and revert is wearing thin, editors must allow information to be referenced and contribute such, tagging and reverting is counter productive, contribute before you tag and revert.