House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

I used to (and still am) one of the highest ranked editors you can be without becoming an administrator. Wikipedia has its problems, and I spent years fighting them- but I slowly realized there is no better way to do it.

Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of truth: everything needs a reliable, secondary source[0]. This means the content has to be notable enough that a reputable source wrote about it, and you cannot reference things like git commits or research papers (since they don't provide context and most people can't understand them).

If a Wikipedia article does use one of those sources, delete the paragraph. If you get into an Edit war, you'll win.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Yes, I am sure what you say is true, but eventually the article(s) in question will be corrected, or tagged in some manner.

But just look at what Trump is doing to the Smithsonian, one example is turning US Slavery History into something even all slaves loved. Or erasing Trump's 2 Impeachments.

You and everyone with even a little bit of smarts knows the articles that will be first targeted is US Slavery History and Trump's multiple Impeachments.

Even if whitehouse.gov rewrites history, or forces reputable outlets to make "corrections", Wikipedia articles can (and do) reference archives.

this is false. all you have to do is see a mildly controversial article like "woman". it is all opinionated. and citing sources to add similar content to "man" would not work. you can go to history and see the comment form the woman who started much of it, saying something like "trying to start something here" and since then, it is like this.

Today, with infinite information you can always find a source no matter how low quality and place it in equal setting with a high quality source.

Then it is suddenly "However"

If someone challenges you, you have infinite time due to obsession or being paid. You can then quote a barrage of wikipedia rules until the other side submits.

If whatever side of the "truth" has a time advantage, they will usually win. That's very common on topics that attract the obsessed, and the end result does not usually correlate with reality