Problem with Wikipedia article on the Book of Acts

Some time ago, someone recommended I read the Wikipedia article “Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles.” Taking a look at it, it was immediately obvious that the article had issues, to say the least. Among other things, an early paragraph had a sentence referring to a “Christian view,” which gave it the feel of having been written by someone who either isn’t aware of such a thing as liberal Christian Biblical scholars, or thinks they can be ignored because they aren’t True Christians(TM).

There’s also quite a few telling things on the Talk page. Among other things, there’s a section titled “Non-Christian bias” which includes this gem:

Does anyone else find it wrong and sad that a bunch of unbelievers have the controlling power over a page about the Holy Book of God’s Word for the largest religion on earth? These unbelievers are censoring believers because they have Administrator power. This is the anti-Christian bias of Wikipedia. I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ know not to trust Wikipedia when it comes to Christian articles. As for the nonbelievers, yes you can cover up the truth on WP, but know that you won’t be able to cover up the truth on the Day of Judgment when God judges you for your actions. This situation is just sad!

In other words, the current rather poor state of the article appears to be the result of some edit wars, with one side being made up of some rather clueless conservative Christians.

I went ahead and changed “Christian view” to “more conservative view,” but that’s a bandaid. If I had the time, I’d invest a lot of time trying to research an improved version of the article, and I may do that in the future. Until then, I’m posting this in case there are any Wikipedians or people who just happen to know a lot about Acts who want to to beat me to doing that.

Also, for non-Acts buff casual Wikipedia users, this is a good example of why, while Wikipedia is great 95% of the time, you should take those little warning notices at the top of a page seriously. Also why it can be worth digging into the Talk and History pages on an article.

William Lane Craig rationalizes his lie about Ehrman
Francis isn't the Pope the Catholic Church deserves, but the one it needs right now
My debate with Randal Rauser is out!
I've read Draper's paper, and I am puzzled