Wikipedia has not set itself up as a source of truth, though some people prefer to spin it that way, to make Wikipedia a more inviting target.
Wikipedia is actually a pastiche of communal expertise, where expertise are the sources suitable for citation by Wikipedia standards. The single most important criteria for a suitable source is that the source is not self-published by an individual with no editorial supervision by competent editorial staff with skin in the game. The second most important criteria is that the source is not the propaganda arm of a contested ideology (such as Breitbart). Ideally the source itself contains its own citations to the primary literature. The "primary" sources are generally journals and other publications in the academic sector, whose editors are often faculty members at prestigious universities. This is no guarantee against bias, but it does a pretty good job of filtering out batshit bias, the most destructive kind.
As far as bias goes, the policy at Wikipedia is that every credible source gets its day in the sun. It might be limited to a single sentence ("contrarian source X says otherwise"), but it will usually contain a citation to said contrarian source, and from there the motivated reader can cut his or her own tracks.
It's absolutely not the claim that this process is infallible, represents "truth", or is bias free.
What Wikipedia does represent is a communal map of human knowledge and starting point for anyone with a brain to pursue their preferred spin.
Molecular genetics is a sub-field of biology that addresses how differences in the structures or expression of DNA molecules manifests as variation among organisms. Molecular genetics often applies an "investigative approach" to determine the structure and/or function of genes in an organism's genome using genetic screens. The field of study is based on the merging of several sub-fields in biology: classical Mendelian inheritance, cellular biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and biotechnology. Researchers search for mutations in a gene or induce mutations in a gene to link a gene sequence to a specific phenotype. Molecular genetics is a powerful methodology for linking mutations to genetic conditions that may aid the search for treatments/cures for various genetics diseases.
What's the most important aspect of that boring lead? It's the embedded links to genetics, genetic screens, Mendelian inheritance, cellular biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and biotechnology; and further down, Watson and Crick, restriction enzyme, electrophoresis, recombinant DNA, plasmid, polymerase chain reaction, Human Genome Project, and the central dogma of molecular biology.
Oh, noes, dogma! Wikipedia must be stopped!
The dogma is a framework for understanding the transfer of sequence information between information-carrying biopolymers, in the most common or general case, in living organisms. There are 3 major classes of such biopolymers: DNA and RNA (both nucleic acids), and protein.
There are 3 x 3 = 9 conceivable direct transfers of information that can occur between these. The dogma classes these into 3 groups of 3: three general transfers (believed to occur normally in most cells), three special transfers (known to occur, but only under specific conditions in case of some viruses or in a laboratory), and three unknown transfers (believed never to occur).
The general transfers describe the normal flow of biological information: DNA can be copied to DNA (DNA replication), DNA information can be copied into mRNA (transcription), and proteins can be synthesized using the information in mRNA as a template (translation).
The special transfers describe: RNA being copied from RNA (RNA replication), DNA being synthesized using an RNA template (reverse transcription), and proteins being synthesized directly from a DNA template without the use of mRNA.
The unknown transfers describe: a protein being copied from a protein, synthesis of RNA using the primary structure of a protein as a template, and DNA synthesis using the primary structure of a protein as a template – these are not thought to naturally occur.
So how does Wikipedia finally survive? Because 9 times out of 10, the dogma police fall asleep in their Cheerios before managing to read to the end of the mostly boring, mostly non-contentious, mostly dull, mostly expository text, filled with all kinds of obvious links to obviously related subjects.
99% of Wikipedia is your basic 1993 link farm, under a far higher grade of volunteer garden staff.
Ah, but our spoonfed morons (and useful idiots) might chance upon Wikipedia and somehow realize that there's more than one way to skin a cat before we succeed in steering them back into the fold again. Wikipedia must be stopped!
The way I see this, the church of Scientology hates Wikipedia with the intensity of a thousand burning suns, QED.
