Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. However, I would add that there's an equal risk of biographies being slanted negatively. Cf. this week's article by Russ Baker: https://whowhatwhy.org/culture/why-we-should-be-wary-of-wiki... Or this one about "revenge editing", published in Salon: https://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corrupt... As for bias, the thing with Wikipedia is that it can be incredibly patchy. Overall, in the English…
Your post is incredibly enlightening. This study, that looked at 30 million citations, found left-wing bias, even after controlling for news media factual reliability. Yet media only (or mostly) report anecdotal examples of right-wing bias. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is fill…
This said, there are frequent media stories about the left-wing bias as well. A Google search for Wikipedia "left-wing bias" provides rich pickings.
It is noticeable that many of the outlets that run them are deemed "unreliable" by (English) Wikipedia. :/
(Love that quote.)