Did you notice the difference in wording?

[strateguy632]

compare these 2 versions both say the truth eisenhower was republican but only britannicca states it as fact.

wikipedia put a spin on it "to block" does that elaborate why he wasn't democrat? like he wasn't really republican he just entered the race pretended to be republican "to block". would anyone say about biden "biden ran as democrat to stop trump." that would be an odd spin. similarly the word entered limits the time, he entered as republican but not later? that is the decision of editors after edit wars?

the agenda of this private company wikipedia is unknown, but such spins are odd. who knows what kind of "roofee" they slip into the stuff you read. we might not even notice until compared with parallel information.

[Flatmanlewis]

Well, Wikipedia is a user sourced database. Literally anybody can log in and create or edit a entry. This is why you see some disclaimers on any particularly controversial topics. In college - we were strictly forbidden from using Wikipedia as a source or reference. The links to other sources was often helpful but Wikipedia is not always reliable.

[Anonymous]

Wikipedia is a captured institution full of spooks, activists, and teenage editors. Look up some of the people who edit a page you can discover all kinds of interesting things about their political motivations.

[Grond21]

Wikipedia is known for pushing a far left agaenda