Regardless of how you feel about Todd Akin, Republicans, or abortion, I think there is something else to focus on when it comes to Wikipedia.
The Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy page has some wonderful original research but the kind that is rarely talked about.
"Related news articles cited a 1996 article in an obstetrics and gynecology journal, which found that 5% of women who were raped became pregnant, which equaled about 32,000 pregnancies each year in the US alone.[6] A separate 2003 article in the journal Human Nature estimated that rapes are twice as likely to result in pregnancies as consensual sex.[7]"
The sites used are blogs, and are used only to try and put forth studies.
It is easy to find articles on both sides quoting all sorts of statistics, especially this
WSJ piece saying: "One article, written by Jack Willke, a Cincinnati physician and antiabortion campaigner and published in an antiabortion group's newsletter in 1999, concluded that "assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare" and that pregnancy could result from as few as one in 1,000 cases of rape. Dr. Willke said Monday that he stood by his article."
This is not the only one quoting a differing statement, but one of the most prominent (WSJ being prominent).
The reason why I call this original research is that you put a bias by quoting some loosely connected pieces to make a claim that is definite where the own pieces do not have that definite statement. The Politico article even states: 'But Gottschall did warn that methodological problems mean the numbers “aren’t carved in a stone.â€' That is no where in the Wikipedia piece quoting the story.
The sources used are only tangentially connected, or do not have the same tone that Wikipedia has. Thus, you can put forth original research while having the appearance of citations. This happens quite often among science articles, and is common when people write a statement then try to add a source to it later to protect the statement.