The summary in Wikipedia may be correct but it is worth remembering that Wikipedia itself is hideously biased to the left at times in its coverage of political issues.

I've generally taken that not to be down to malevolence but probably just down to the fact those drawn to editing it are most likely of a similar political hue to those from academia.

When you are in the wrong lane, everybody is going against you?

Has it struck you that maybe the world is actually that way and that they prefer to be that way. Just because it isn't your way doesn't mean that you dismiss the rest of the world.

I'm a man of the left, which is partly why I find these issues so shameful.

So you'll need to clarify how I'm "in the wrong lane".

Honest question: Could you point to some examples of Wikipedia's "hideous" left-wing bias? Not trying to catch you out, I've just personally always been surprised by how neutral Wikipedia's political articles tend to be when I've read them, and I'd like to challenge my own perception here.

Not left-wing bias but rather US democrat bias see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_con...

> I've just personally always been surprised by how neutral Wikipedia's political articles tend to be when I've read them

My experience so far is that they manage to polarize even articles unrelated to politics, I think that it is partially caused by the toxicity of the community.

Thanks for that; a very thorough overview I hadn't read and it saves me going through wikipedia to find some examples for the (reasonable) request in response to my previous comment.

I should point out that there are plenty of editors who lean left that make genuine attempts to keep it out of their editing and are as frustrated as me about those who don't; I genuinely suspect it is an editor-demographics numbers thing that causes the imbalance as much as anything, as previously stated.

What's the Occam's Razor of "everyone smart enough to be in advanced learning seems to have the same political bias", do you think?

Anecdotal, but many of the stupidest, most blinkered people I've ever met are those with "advanced learning".

There was an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that addressed this something along the lines of, "the smarter you are, the easier it is to talk yourself into doublethink".

They are all drinking from the same self-righteous well of "morality". The fact that they consider themselves "advanced" also seems to translate that they are also "correct" in all matters, regardless of their expertise.

I'm pretty sure the simplest explanation doesn't involve so many double quotes.