[oscribinn]

Compare the opening paragraphs of this article in 2015 vs now:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151104200851/https://en.wikipe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Anyone thinking that Wikipedia still provides a nonpartisan platform which makes an honest attempt to catalogue all the angles on a specific topic without any blatant spin is either dishonest or naive.

[bad_username]

This is cotrect. Wikipedia informs poorly on subjects that have political or cultural significance, favoring heavily certain ideologies over neutral presentation of facts. It has been hijacked by activists that make it impossible to introduce any data that is outside of what is fashionable today. Wikipedia still rides its old reputation, but does not deserve it any more.

[unethical_ban]

It's strange to see someone use "bipartisan" as a stand un for "fair" or "factual".

[oscribinn]

Edited, "nonpartisan" is apparently the word I was looking for.

[doublepg23]

Echoing the other comment, I'm unsure what's wrong with the opening paragraph in the second link.

[adzm]

What are you trying to point out in the latest version? They are still pretty similar for several years apart.