No, Wikipedia isn’t biased, except toward reality

And no, the person making the charges isn’t its co-founder

Wikipedia is a trusted, neutral resource for basic facts, with over 6 billion articles, and a quarter of a trillion page views in the last 12 months alone. Long gone are the days when it was considered a weak resource. And Wikipedia itself makes it clear that its written articles are not to be considered definitive, but strongly recommends going to the cited references. Studies have found that the more times an article is edited, the more factual and less biased it becomes, and that when comparing Encyclopedia Brittanica’s articles to the equivalent length introductions to Wikipedia, they are equally unbiased.

Recently, right-wing media has been frothily pushing a story from a self-described co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. Headlines have been blaring from Fox News and similar sites that “Wikipedia is a broken system” and that it “scrapped neutrality, and favors lefty politics”. He published this in a blog post recently and right-wing media and right-wingers in generally have been leaping upon it. Questions are being asked about it in Quora, which brought it to my attention, not being a regular reader of right-wing propaganda.

But here’s the thing. Sanger is a disaffected crank on the subject of Wikipedia…