The Wikipedia article on circumcision has been the subject of several edit wars, which the pro-circ lobby seem to have more or less won, there is one in particular who seems to be all over it like a rash, deleting anything anti- he doesn't like as a "point of view", even if it can be substantiated by studies etc. and leaving anything pro- in, even though the studies have been thoroughly debunked. You only have to look at the discussion pages to see what has been going on.
If you want to change anything you had better be ready for an edit war, they won't allow anything anti-circ to stay.
That article was what made me reconsider the Wiki as a source of information and made me realise that although the concept is good, in reality any crank and his brother can edit it. The information is only as good as knowledge of the person who put it in there - it's a great showcase for prejudice and misinformation, and even worse, many of the articles (not just the one on circumcision) contain "facts" that are just plain wrong. It's quite good as a starting point for further research, but never as an original source.
ETA: Oh, I just read the article again, looks like there have been some changes made there after all, there have been some determined intactivists in action, I hope they win out in the end.