I agree. However, I would add that there's an equal risk of biographies being slanted negatively. Cf. this week's article by Russ Baker: https://whowhatwhy.org

I agree. However, I would add that there's an equal risk of biographies being slanted negatively. Cf. this week's article by Russ Baker: https://whowhatwhy.org/culture/why-we-should-be-wary-of-wikipedia/ https://whowhatwhy.org/culture/why-we-should-be-wary-of-wiki... Or this one about "revenge editing", published in Salon: https://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ https://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corrupt... As for bias, the thing with Wikipedia is that it can be incredibly patchy. Overall, in the English Wikipedia, the bias is undoubtedly slightly left of centre, but you may also have areas that swing the other way. Just yesterday, for example, a study appeared in The Journal of Holocaust Research alleging that Wikipedia's English-language coverage of Holocaust history is systematically distorted by right-wing Polish editors: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2... Similarly there have been allegations that nationalists and historical revisionists hold sway in the Japanese Wikipedia: https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/japanese-wikipedia-misinformation-non-english-editions.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/japanese-wikipedia-misi... The Croatian Wikipedia was acknowledged by the Wikimedia Foundation itself to have been in the hand of right-wing extremists for about a decade: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Wikipedia_Disinformation_Assessment-2021 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Wikipedia_Disinform... Wikipedia is vast. The amount and direction of bias can vary from language to language, from article to article, even from paragraph to paragraph.