Except Wikipedia's bias goes far, far beyond "objective truths". There's not a lot of objective truths in politics, since politics is inherently subjective matter, but reading Wikipedia articles on political subjects systematically you will discover very quickly it has very distinct political makeup, which is quite one-sided, and if you eveр meet the admins or prominent editors, you'll also recognize the same political makeup. You may agree with them, but that doesn't make it "objective truth" - that just makes one more person with that opinion.
>But people - including the very worst perpetrators of misinformation - very rarely say false facts. Instead, they say true things without enough context. But nobody will ever agree what context is necessary and which context is redundant.
WP doesn't permit primary sources (usually), many right wing publications inc Fox News are banned - for not being a "Reliable Source", actually that activists will push source bans via wiki-lawyering (see the talk pages). I've been subject to Wiki-lawyering because a topic I contributed to became politically contentious, and activists jumped in the thread to revert disagreeable sources.
Wikipedia permits breaking rules if it "makes wikipedia a better place", and do not permit (WP:POINTY) you to try to enforce the same rules equally on other pages. The rules are often arbitrary and political articles are hijacked by activists - typically an active, small minority. The co-founder, Larry Sanger noted this in the earlier days as academics sitting on pages of their discipline, then as Wikipedia became a key source of information, editors were hired to represent certain causes (they are supposed to disclose them), and it became a hive of political activity.
Example - recently a user "TheTranarchist", a main contributor to gender pages, wrote about how she fights bigotry with her Wikipedia edits. She was tempbanned with pushback for those posts - the Vast Majority keeps quiet.
Next we have people like GorillaWarfare who see a hitpiece on people without WP pages - e.g. the CEO of cloudflare - and create a wikipage sourcing just the hitpiece.
WP:GOODBIAS - says bias is a good thing, using uncontentious examples (we are biased to a heliocentric, not geocentric model), but WP:GOODBIAS is actually used to explain away political activism on fuzzy issues.
WP:TRUTH - verifiability, not truth. There is provably false information on Wikipedia which can't be pointed out (except in the talk threads) because the sources referenced are either banned, or it falls under WP:OR (no original research). E.g., a man disappears, there's an article written that he's dead, source the article saying he's dead, turns out he's alive and pictures of him are posted on Twitter, can't edit the page until a new article comes out retracting the death. I could continue with all the nonsense I see on there, but I'll leave it at that.
Fox News isn't banned, unlike the Daily Mail. When it is on the record that everyone from the hosts up to network executives were aware and continued to report falsehoods, one might think the lady doth protest too much.
The absolute worst bias is where news sites have an active interest in only reporting one-sidedly. As only "reliable" sources can be used, only their reporting gets picked up and states as fact. Gamergate is one of the most blatant examples of that. So much so, that the very wiki page on it fuels a cycle of "there is no way that so much of it is made up"
