Larry Sanger is a weirdo whose entire persona over the last nearly two decades has been as a contrarian to Wikipedia. (I say this as someone who initially joined him in his Citizendium venture, only to bail as I learned more about the man and his vision for an online encyclopedia, which seems inferior to Wikipedia, in spite of Wikipedia’s warts and all.)

Sanger remains of those standard figures that the media goes to if they want criticism of the most popular option, but his criticisms of Wikipedia are often inaccurate, disingenuous, and he himself has lost too much everyday contact with the running of an online encyclopedia to be up to date with things.

This article is really arguing that Wikipedia is not conservative enough for Larry Sanger's preference.

He is arguing that minority opinions should be given more equal coverage, but only as far as this applies to conservative points of view.

Unbiased, or even slightly biased, is impossible. The torrent of factual information is of such a magnitude that it is impossible to present “all the facts”. And presenting any subset of those facts, even a random sampling, induces a bias in the resulting narrative. Including the information suggested in the article would add a different kind of bias. Impartiality is impossible. Neutrality is a a lie. Strong bias is inevitable, no matter the intent.

Sounds like he wants Wikipedia to move away from a centrist/neutral position more towards the right.