Larry Sanger has been a severe critic of Wikipedia for nearly its entire life. Even putting aside his personal bias, the article you cite is not particularly c

Larry Sanger has been a severe critic of Wikipedia for nearly its entire life. Even putting aside his personal bias, the article you cite is not particularly convincing. As key examples, he compares the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama (generally positive) and Donald Trump (generally negative) as evidence of failed neutrality. Any definition of neutrality that requires all political figures to be equally criticised and praised would result in a resource that simply has no value. Should the article about Hitler really balance for and against arguments concerning the Holocaust?