Looking at the default. Editing for free is more left wing. Deep research is more left wing. Journalists who write many of the sources are more left wing. Sur

Looking at the default. Editing for free is more left wing. Deep research is more left wing. Journalists who write many of the sources are more left wing. Surveys show more people edit from left wing locations (But not entirely) and to your comment - "Counties with high religious adherence also have a low level of Wikipedia-editing activity" - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/where-wikipedias-editors-are-where-they-arent-and-why/605023/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/where... Conservapedia is a failure, it's not something the right is good at. Personally I can find left wing bias easily on Wiki, right wing bias is harder to find for myself. I don't have any reason to think Wikipedia has a right wing bias issue of the same scale. An idea it's more US centric and the US is more right than Europe and that comes out, would be a good theory, I'm not sold but open to it. To your example Scientology , the intro sentence is biased, it's a left wing bias, the right would not word their bias (which they have) that way - "Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by American author L. Ron Hubbard, and an associated movement. It has been variously defined as a cult, a business or a new religious movement" Strangely Conservapedia is better - "Scientology is a new religion[1] established in the United States by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in 1954." German Wikipedia is good (Translated)- Scientology is a New Religious Movement whose teaching goes back to the writings of the American writer L. Ron Hubbard