Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au):
Wikipedia can be as biased in political position as any other media type.
And example person X can be wrong, etc. Does it bother you that the above variety of rhetoric is basically tautologically correct and yet content-free? Unless Russell ever claimed that statements should be given credence _solely_ because they appear on a Wikipedia page and for no other reason -- and of course he never did -- you would seem to be raising a non-sequitur objection.
Otherwise, Wikipedia can be an excellent source of information -- but you can never just rely on Wikipedia and/or it's "supporting" links....
Again, Russell never claimed that.
in most cases, it is opinion, rather than fact -- or rather the interpretation of those facts
This would be more compelling if you gave a few relevant examples. Anyway, good luck with hanging tough on the stance that global warming and anthopogenic origin thereof being mere political advocacy and opinion. I personally urge that people still holding that view put their money behind their convictions. Like buying up low-altitude coastal real estate in Kiribati that science-deluded natives believe to be in danger from rising ocean levels. The Maldives is another good prospect. If you're right, you have one hell of an investment opportunity in low-lying areas. I say: Strike while the prospects are, um, high, Andrew. Get rich!