Y'know, "Wikipedia" is a gross misnomer. Better name for it would be "Libertaripedia".
Or maybe "Raving-Flake-Randboy-pedia".

Take, for example, the word "praxeology". Wiktionary gives it a neutral meaning. It's a term from epistemology, which means I would classify it under general philosophy. Okay?

But Wikipedia turns it into a von Mises/libertarian magic word. With an "Austrian School" infobox.

Now I wonder how many other articles in Category: Epistemology have been given this von Mises/Rothbard libertarian slant.

You're right, PD. Wikipedia's philosophy coverage is nuts. That's the only word I can think of for it.

Or 'total shit', in two words. There are islands of good content, mostly written before 2008. But the rest is awful.

The problem here will be trying to explain WP's poor philosophy coverage to attention-span-limited
ordinary members of the public.

I'm leaning toward beginning on the basis of the absurdly small article space it occupies--
0.18% total, out of all of Wikipedia's subject matter. Britannica is 0.8%, by comparison.

WP's general slant towards crackpot libertarian/Rand beliefs is clearly a problem, but very
difficult to explain concisely. Again, Susan Jacoby did a good job in the Truth In Numbers
movie, yet still barely scratched the surface.