You can pick out a single article that we may all agree on, but my point still stands that overall Wikipedia's political articles are biased to the left.
Even Wikipedia's co-founder agrees https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
Even Wikipedia's co-founder agrees https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
Those are some odd examples...
On one hand he complains Obama's article doesn't mention the Benghazi Attack, when that's actually listed as one of the events during his first term.
On the other hand Trump's article doesn't mention the 2019 attack against the US embassy in Baghdad.
The choice of topics after that doesn't help dispel the notion of the author having a bit of an bias issue himself: Abortion, Jesus (a whole lot of that), global warming and vaccines. It's like a best-of of the deeper ends of American conservative talking points, the only thing missing is 2A and some good old "teach the controversy".
Particularly that Jesus part is very difficult for me to take serious: Recognizing that the biblical Jesus is mostly a myth is not "bias", as much as it might offend some religious sensibilities.
Wikipedia has its problems, but an article that complains "Oh no, Wikipedia calls Trump a liar!" from someone with a chip on his shoulder about Wikipedia in general is silly.