Wikipedia is incredibly biased in terms of what news it cherry picks though. Just read through the debates of what gets proposed for inclusion, and then think about the stuff that's outright deleted.
"Just read through the debates of what gets proposed for inclusion, and then think about the stuff that's outright deleted."
I kinda also would like to see a concrete example.
There was a great article posted here a few years back I’d love to find again, that discusses how to use Wikipedia to reinforce a position without lying. Splitting your side into a bunch of mutually reinforcing pages, careful choose of when to include or exclude adjectives, and so on. I found it pretty eye-opening.
For example, the entire entry for "mass formation" was deleted. The Dutch version still exists: