I do think that needs some stronger sourcing. It is one thing to argue that certain wiki articles have some bias or the other, but a categorical claim that it is an Islamist and left propaganda machine seems rather bizarre at first cut.
At the moment these claims seem to be supported by some random tweets?
>> Rising pillars of smoke soon signalled the rite of jauhar as the Rajputs killed their families and prepared to die in a supreme sacrifice. In a day filled with hand-to-hand struggles until virtually all the defenders died. The Mughal troops slaughtered another 20-25,000 ordinary persons, inhabitants of the town and peasants from the surrounding area on the grounds that they had actively helped in the resistance.
— John F. Richards, The Mughal Empire[8]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%....
> I do think that needs some stronger sourcing.
Academic study, showing leftist bias: https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britan...
> Greenstein and Zhu borrowed this taxonomy of partisan terms and counted their use in pairs of Wikipedia and Britannica articles on the same subject. They calculated bias as the absolute difference between the number of Democratic terms and the number of Republican ones. For example, if an article contained 10 terms associated with Democrats and only three associated with Republicans, its bias score would be seven.
> They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and a bit more left-leaning.
And a co-founder’s perspective: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
> Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.
says rightwing mouthpieces.