Like in everything else online, when you read Wikipedia you should compare it to other sources. If you limit yourself to one point of reference, like Wikipedia, bias is inevitable. So the key concept in this regard is User Beware.
I use Wiki a lot. I’ve found that it’s generally reliable on hard facts like names, locations, and dates. After that it gets dicey, as Wiki pages are very open to manipulation. Thus, do not limit your research to Wiki.
You only have to look at the delicious bias of my wiki page, with its writer monitoring my tweets as he admits in its discussion page. It doesn’t mention either of my pieces for The Guardian or The Morning Star or my numerous Times Ed pieces. They don’t fit its narrative. https://t.co/1K7w5bMKuC
— Edward Dutton (@jollyheretic) July 17, 2021
FNC: “Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger continued his criticism this week of the online encyclopedia that he helped create, citing the page on President Biden as an example of its leftist bias.
Sanger feels Wikipedia has changed considerably since he founded it alongside Jimmy Wales in 2001 and has been a critic for more than a decade. He said the site is no longer committed to neutrality and doesn’t feature different points of view.
Sanger has made similar comments in the past and penned a 2020 blog post declaring that the site is ‘badly biased,’ ‘no longer has an effective neutrality policy’ and clearly favors left-wing politics. He wrote it has long forgotten its original policy of aiming to neutrally present information, and nowadays the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia reliably covers politics from a liberal point of view.”
“You can trust it to give a reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything. Can you trust it always to give you the truth? Well, it depends on what you think the truth is,” Sanger said Wednesday on LockdownTV.
“Wikipedia is known, now, by everyone to have a lot of influence in the world … so there is a very big, nasty, complex game being played behind the scenes to make the articles say what somebody wants them to say,” Sanger said the site has a leftist bias. “The Biden article, if you look at it, has very little by way of the concerns that Republicans have had about him,” Sanger said. “So if you want to have anything remotely resembling the Republican point of view about Biden, you’re not going to get it from the article.”
“There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard of journalistic ‘false balance,’ which is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science,” Sanger wrote. “Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find…The word for it is propaganda,” he said.