Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

Are you assuming bias/opinion is one-dimensional and the "median American" stands for the Truth?

If the median American thought the Earth was flat, should it treat that as a valid theory?

NPR is left {{Citation needed}} [1]

[1] outside of identity politics

ok but what’s the crime?

also english wikipedia is actually for english speakers.. so it includes countries that aren’t america. there’s a reason they didn’t name it american wikipedia.

This will sound rude but I mean it respectfully. If you believe NPR is not left leaning then you are in a severe filter bubble and may want to update your news diet.

If only if were that easy. American politics is mostly fought over interpretations, not simple facts.

No but thanks for asking.

Yeah I agree there doesn't seem to be a crime. I was addressing the tone of the comment thread.

Point taken, but I think my comment is a reflection of the problems with the modern use of "left" and "right".

Yes, of course NPR is more on the side of democrats than republicans.

But, it is very much pro-business, and often pro-war status quo ("right"). And, as I mentioned ("identity politics"), also very much pro-diversity in race/gender/etc. ("left").

So, IMHO, very much "centrist", not "left" (except on race/sex/gender).

Politics concerns what ought to be, not what is.

Truth has a left wing bias.

Yes, I do believe that the majority of Wikipedia articles are unbiased in that people spend their time and effort trying to find the most neutral and fact based way of discussing a topic.