> That's not to say that Wikipedia doesn't have it's issues, it has them, but jumping from there to something that could very well be described as a conspiracy theory, is reaching a bit much.
You jumped to conspiracy theory. You said all. I did not. The editors simply have a bias that affects how they accept and offer contributions. These biases show especially in politically charged topics and you have to identify and check them, often they are factually wrong or misleading. I did not say all articles have this bias, but it is prevalent and makes Wikipedia unusable for any political research, unless you scrutinize all sources and do additional source finding that Wikipedia omitted on purpose because it didn't align with it's viewpoints.
There are niche wikis, but Conservapedia exists to counter Wikipedia's bias on certain topics. They have a page I linked to which lists a lot of these biases, but it's barely an exhaustive list. You can find instances like these on nearly every political page.
This is not some unfounded conspiracy theory as you suggest, Harvard has done a study on this as well as other institutions.
You jumped to conspiracy theory. You said all. I did not. The editors simply have a bias that affects how they accept and offer contributions. These biases show especially in politically charged topics and you have to identify and check them, often they are factually wrong or misleading. I did not say all articles have this bias, but it is prevalent and makes Wikipedia unusable for any political research, unless you scrutinize all sources and do additional source finding that Wikipedia omitted on purpose because it didn't align with it's viewpoints.
There are niche wikis, but Conservapedia exists to counter Wikipedia's bias on certain topics. They have a page I linked to which lists a lot of these biases, but it's barely an exhaustive list. You can find instances like these on nearly every political page.
This is not some unfounded conspiracy theory as you suggest, Harvard has done a study on this as well as other institutions.
Studies:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikip...
https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/17-028_e7788722-...
http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/08/26/wikipedia-sources-metho...
http://archive.is/dDr7X
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
Another example:
https://medium.com/@MainstreamWatc2/blatant-liberal-bias-on-...