Let's unpack this: * Academia does have a left leaning bias. http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-wing-but-lets-not-exaggerate-it-74093* h

Let's unpack this: * Academia does have a left leaning bias. http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-wing-but-lets-not-exaggerate-it-74093* http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-win... https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-new-england-colleges-responsible-left-leaning-professoriate* https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-... (and others - I can find very little that actually challenges the belief) * The mainstream media has a left-leaning, status quo, (and as used in Wikipedia) American bias https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/27/dear-mainstream-media-why-so-liberal/?utm_term=.1ec1ff06056f* https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/... http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/* http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist... Given that Wikipedia has, as enforced policy, that mainstream media and academic sources trump all else, it logically must share the same bias as its sources. This is even acknowledged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_.22hive_mind.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consens... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias It's not like I'm making some accusation of conspiracy or malfeasance here, so there's no need to interpret it as an attack. This is simply the way the site and its user base operates given its current policies. If the media is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. If the Academic community is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. The reason I speak of these disparate groups as wholes is that, on Wikipedia, consensus determines what an article says, what gets relegated to a "criticism" section, and what can't be said at all. (Arguably, the biases of the editors will win over the actual state of the sources, but this is just my read on the policy) This is one of the downsides of acting as a tertiary source alone: you're only as good as your secondaries and primaries I then extend this inference out to this new project. It has the same people at the helm, will likely attract the same group of editors, and so it will share the same problems as Wikipedia proper.