[SilverElfin]

Yep, this has long been an issue. Wikipedia articles on even slightly political topics are very one-sided. The rules that govern Wikipedia reinforce a certain set of views, and those who hold power in that community also share certain sets of views. Larry Sanger has talked about this trend for many years, but I am not sure there’s a way to stop the increasing bias in Wikipedia. The activists running it have too much time.

[one33seven]

Facts aren't views.

[xyzzy123]

If we take a contested issue like the origins of COVID-19, the facts are detailed, complex, contradictory and ambiguous. They also don't make narrative sense without some degree of interpretation.

Interpretations of complex webs of facts often diverge along tribal lines and bias can easily leak through when editors need to decide which interpretations are authoritative.

[DarkBrocoli]

By definition, facts cannot be contradictory or ambiguous. Otherwise, they are not facts.

[Cider9986]

Any example articles to look at that demonstrate your point?

[SilverElfin]

Anything controversial will have this issue. But COVID, BLM, and things relating to the current administration often have those biases. To see how rules get weaponized, see the talk pages. You find that a lot of reasonable editors are basically blocked using one technicality or the other, and it is used to keep balanced views out of Wikipedia. The rules sound benign until you see how they favor one side.

[mmh0000]

Such as?

For example?

For instance?

You know we're using, right now, this very cool thing called the Internet. And there's a somewhat new capability in it that lets you link directly to other documents!