There are many very poorly written articles in Wikipedia. This does not make it a poor resource; it just makes it a starting point to be viewed extremely skeptically, as every resource should be viewed.

But a good example of a bad article on so many levels is the History of Martinique. Even if you ignore the uncorrected vandalism, it's just... bad. Bad writing, unsourced, inaccurate, even plain wrong.

Thomas Edison was born(he sdfgsdfgsdfg sdf in Milan, Ohio, the seventh and last child of Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. (1804–1896) (born in Marshalltown, Nova Scotia, Canada) and the former Nancy Matthews Elliott (1810–1871).

And thus spake Zarathustra in [[Thomas Edison]], and yet I cannot find this edit in the history of the article.

Pointless.

1998 - A college dropout becomes the first person to be convicted of a hate crime committed in cyberspace. (10 February)

It contains no verifiable information, no link to a relevant Wikipedia article.

Gotta love advertisements in day's history...

2007 David Lam and the Pistols takes on Tommy in the Geno Bowl (9 February)

Lovely. Yet again the edit has been oversighted, only in this case there is no possible justification for it.

Very strange... I clipped this from 7 Feb. on Wikipedia:

1986 - XXXXXXXXXXX, Malaysian student

to comment on it. Now I cannot find it anywhere in the article's history. One presumes it has been deleted from the history using Oversight. The reason being there was a person's real name where the Xs are. What bothers me is not that it was done, but that it happened so rapidly. It suggests that not only is Oversight used regularly, it's "instant on", with no questions being asked.