Not all contributors to Wikipedia are trolls.
But this rag on Wikipedia business is what annoys me: "meh meh meh, it's not a valid source". Stop regurgitating the rhetoric your teachers have vomited into you. anything is a valid secondary source, provided it utilises pertinent primary sources. The onus is on the individual to check those sources.
Plenty of lectures I've had have pulled the old do as i say not as i do: citing it whilst saying don't use it.
The reason they say that is because they want to encourage you to scratch a bit deeper when doing research, not take things at face value.
Plenty of professionals consult it to double check their knowledge: it's quite evident when info on there has been falsified.
"Ladies and Gentleman, Monty Zuma!" Nothing like changing an Aztec emperor from a comedian to an actual emperor.
Moctezuma II was indeed the emperor when Cortés arrived to Tenochtitlán, but he was overthrown by his people, beacuse he defended the Spaniards (believing their were gods).
Then Cuitláhuac ascended to the throne, but he was soon killed by the fearmost weapon the Europeans had brought: Smallpox.
After that, Cuauhtémoc was crowned tlatoani (emperor), and he still fought against the Spaniards. So technically he was the emperor defeated by Cortés, not Moctezuma (who was killed a year before the Spaniard victory).
i will fight no more forever
did eventually get gandhi
It's like in the Satanic Verse, Saladin changing his name from Salahuddin to better appeal to western audiences.