> It takes stances on wedge issues by the sole fact that it eliminates any sources its editors do not agree with.|| > > The global warming and MMR vaccine art

> It takes stances on wedge issues by the sole fact that it eliminates any sources its editors do not agree with.|| > > The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. I do not think either of these are examples of bias in Wikipedia. Especially for the MMR article, I am aware of no scientific minority that would take issue with the article. Both articles mention the existence of controversy about the topics. I think it would be hard to provide any unbiased information about actual wedge topics if this counts as biased. I am not going to make any claim that Wikipedia is not biased, but I do not think it is possible for any encyclopedia to be unbiased to Larry Sanger's ideals without being decidedly leaning to the right.