Just take one minute to look at the Discussion Tab, which is where the community discusses what should go into the main article. You can tell they are mostly GOP by the actual discussions of what should go in the article on Clinton:
Is there some reason his losing his law license isn't mentioned?
Clinton walked out of his commitment to the Army Reserve as a condition to being admitted to ROTC, Clinton signed up and was sworn in to the army reserve, but never showed up. Other than that, his draft dodging looks comarable to Dick Cheney's. Compare the two bios on Wiki.CorvetteZ51 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
IMHO this is entirely on-target. Clinton deserves all the mentions of Bin Laden he gets. He passed on catching him, allowing 9/11 to happen. I'm not saying Bush doesn't deserve any mentions, as it definitely happened during his tenure. Clinton gets the blame, though. --andrew leahey 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that this is true, but I heard that Clinton sold China the technology that allowed them to create nuclear weapons?
Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs--the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector. Wouldn't one need to factor in 8 years of population growth here?
Wasnt it alleged that one of the sites bombed by America was a pharmaceutical company which produced 50% of sudans drugs and medecines? this should be included, no?
Should someone put his views on homosexuality? He "sed a tear over the death of Matthew Shapard." Then not long after aggresssively disaproevd of gay marriage (to the point of being red in the face).
Compare that with the wikipedia article on George W. Bush. They are ravenous to put him in a good light:
Is it really necessary, or even appropriate, to update Bush's standing in the polls each week? Seems like overkill. How about simply stating that the polls show an upswing
From time to time, Bush's intellectual capacities have been questioned by the media  and other politicians , leading to speculation about his IQ, of which no official record is known ." This is inflamitory, irrelevent, and factually unsuported (yes, we know that people question his intellegence, but there is nothing indicating that this is true. On the contrary, "Daddy's money" claims aside, the fact that he graduated from Yale speaks of an above average degree of intellegence. Articulation does not equal intellegence
I know some of you would write off that this is wikipedia and people should know better. But the fact is it is an extraordinarily popular website that is accurate on most issues -- communities police millions of articles they are close to and it is widely used because of that reason. Even the Clinton issues that made the article aren't necessarily untrue, but it is disingenious to only talk about Clinton in terms of scandals when he oversaw the greatest ecomonic prosperity in our entire history.
I urge a small community here from Daily Kos to keep vigilance on sensitive articles that are seen by millions in Wikipedia, such as Bill Clinton.
It's an easy smear to prevent.
UPDATE: TO answer a question, you can easily update even if its is locked (Bill Clinton is). You need to be a registered user. If you are new, register and dicker around a bit on some other unlocked articles--then you can update.