This is one of the reasons you can’t use wikipedia as a reference for anything vaguely controversial. For some things, it’s great. Earlier today I was looking up some information about private network addressing within IPv6. It had great info. I would never look to wikipedia for anything remotely political though.
Agreed. The default position of Wikipedia in such cases is to carry the left’s narrative and consider anything to the contrary as “vandalism”.
A similar problem exists the Gamergate controversy, where truth (especially if it’s from Breitbart) has a very tough road to being accepted. Introducing narrative-shattering truth there immediately invites action to scrub it.