> since when wikipedia is biased Since the first article hit the site which clearly showed off the personal bias of the author. Then since the first article wa

> since when wikipedia is biased Since the first article hit the site which clearly showed off the personal bias of the author. Then since the first article was edited by a group of like-minded editors who approved of each others edits but were vigilant in keeping other opinions off the page. These groups of editors come in different flavours ranging from ideologically driven [1] - these control the narrative on pages related to politics and politically sensitive topics like SARS2 and "Climate" - to commercially employed to keep unwanted narratives off certain pages. > and why EB isn't? Who says that Encyclopedia Britannica is not biased? They are to a certain (although lesser) extent, they just happen to be differently biased. That is where my remark on the value of diversity of opinion comes in. [1] https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/