> There are cases where Wikipedia is biased, not because of any intention of people to be biased, but just because no one cares about that thing except fans of

> There are cases where Wikipedia is biased, not because of any intention of people to be biased, but just because no one cares about that thing except fans of that thing. This woefully understates the very intentional bias of editors. As an example, take a look at the talk page for the Wikipedia article on Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, which includes bombshells such as "Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross has shares in Navigator, a publicly traded shipping company that has contracts with Russian gas company Sibur, held in off-shore accounts. Co-owners of Sibur have ties to Vladimir Putin and are under U.S. sanctions". The deduction required to conclude that this is evidence of 'Links between Trump associates and Russian officials' borders on the absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Links_between_Trump_assoc...