I decided to delve a bit more into this phenomenon and followed the link to McGarvey's entry and then to more about the restoration movement and the churches of Christ. For all of the complaints about Wikipedia's flaws, I found these entries to be pretty good. Obviously written by an outsider, they nonetheless kept primarily to the facts and did an admirable job of using proper terminology and descriptions. In fact, the entries about the church and the differences among congregations as well as the divisions of the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, and even the International (Crossroads / Boston) were all reasonably well written and objective. I would not contend that they were perfectly done, but there was a matter of fact fairness in them without any hints of anything unprofessional or biased in them and quite well referenced. They may have referenced certain things that we may not agree with or be proud of, but is historically factual and must be mentioned in that type of documentation.
I would even go so far as to say that it would probably do more good than harm for Christians to read those entries. Some might learn some things about the restoration movement and the history of the churches of Christ of which they are members.
There was a quote by someone unknown to me who wrote a book about choosing a church. I don't know all that was behind it, or even if it may have been intended as a disparaging remark, but I loved it. "If it's not in the Bible, then these folks aren't going to do it." - Carmen Renee Berry, The Unauthorized Guide to Choosing a Church. It is great to see that even if others may not like what we stand for at least they do know what it is that we stand for. - jp