Vandalism at Wikipedia is commonplace. I have often faced the same sabotage that Br. Naushad and Br. Jawaid encountered. I have spent long hours tuning the “Qur’an Alone” and the “Mahdi” pages, but my work has somehow always been compromised by those who don’t think much of free thought. Back when I was not as tied up as I am now, I used to doggedly pursue such challenges, re-posting my entries and fighting it out with the Mullahs on the “Discussion” page. My endeavors were sometimes successful: about 3 years ago the Qur’an Alone page was dominated by the Submitters, making it seem as if the Submitters were the only upholders of this philosophy. I had to fight the Submitters’ contributors to give the Bazm Tolue Islam and Ahle Qur’an more prominence on the page. At other times, the Mullahs won out, as with the Mahdi page. I’m still sorry to note that a major contribution of mine on the Mahdi page, “Veracity of the Mahdi’s existence”, has been totally removed from the page.
I suppose this will always be the case with a collaborative, open-ended encyclopedia like Wikipedia. In fact, vandalism is not only limited to sensitive issues like religion, but extends to less contentious topics as well. A few years ago, on the page of the guitarist Eric Johnson, I mentioned a “Greatest Guitarists” list that placed Johnson above Steve Vai and Tom Morello. My entry was promptly deleted by fans of Vai, and Morello’s then-band, Rage Against the Machine.
Nevertheless, I value Wikipedia for the sheer number of contributors that are at once writing on every conceivable topic. Whereas a privately operated encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Britannica employs a select group of editors to write articles-- making bias unavoidable, and limitlessness unachievable-- Wikipedia is a democratic encyclopedia where people from all walks of life can endlessly contribute with their knowledge. The vast number of contributors is the reason Wikipedia can stomp its competition in as far as the number of articles, and their extensive scope, are concerned. For example, consider the almost scholarly page on Richard Marx’s 1991 song “Hazard”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_(song). Can you expect to see such a detailed discussion, on a topic seemingly so unworthy as a pop song, in Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta?