Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

Wikipedia is a good source for certain kinds of information. If you ask it about anything political it's going to be from a certain slant and the most informative part of the page will be the Talk page which explains what people would like on the page that isn't there, or shouldn't be on the page but is

What examples of this are there? I've usually found Wikipedia to be quite equal opportunity, well rounded, and factual.

They have their NPOV[1] policy, and seem impressively unbiased to me, given the various divisive situations they have to try to cover.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_v...

The editors mostly reference left-leaning media outlets when it comes to political topics, without providing a counterbalance from right-leaning sources, assuming it were a truth-seeking endeavor.

As a non American this is very obvious to me.

Even Reuters that was supposedly meant to be a non-biased media outlet is clearly left-leaning at this point

I'm very surprised to hear Reuters described as left wing. I suppose though that even my Republican twice Trump voting uncle is left of someone, is that what you mean?

I'm increasingly concerned about the fact that any media outlet, conservative or otherwise, that doesn't engage in far right pandering to the propaganda of politicians is magically labeled "left wing." Anecdotal but someone was arguing to me at a pub last night that Piers Morgan is a liberal now because of his criticism of Israel.