Really, how so? Well, Wiki commits the heinous crimes of using 'the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D."'. Anti-Christian, or just neutral? I think, but correct me if I'm wrong, that a huge percentage of the world's population are not actually Christian.
Oh and another terrible Wiki faux-pas is to use British English spellings, 'Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour..."' I mean, we're using English as a world language here, I presume? Therefore it must be American English, dammit; the most original and pure!
I love the romantic tale they tell of the myth known as Buddhism:
Legend has it that Buddhism's foundations lie with an Indian prince, Siddhartha Gautama, who, after observing the suffering of his people, longed to discover the reason for suffering and pain. There are many romanticised accounts and theories as to the course of Gautama's life. One particularly simplified story proclaims that he went into meditation for a long time seated under a tree, and after finishing his period of meditation formed Buddhism.(I admit, I anglicised the spelling here.)
On a serious note, I'm wondering what purpose such an encyclopedia has. It clearly serves a purpose for an archive of censured and biased information for a particular audience (and not just those poking fun). But as for claiming to be an unbiased, educational, clean and concise reference tool - I just don't get it. Self-delusion or pure propaganda?
For some good examples, check out the pages on homosexuality and evolution.