Encyclopedias as a class have tended to be contentious since they first appeared. Diderot [0] & d'Alembert's French work started in reaction to Chambers' 1751 English work. After the first volumes appeared, in 1759 their work was suppressed by authorities for being ~~too liberal. (By 1772 they had made 28 volumes.) And they inspired the 1768 English 'answer' by Macfarquhar and Bell which became the Encyclopædia Britannica.

[0] Diderot once said: 'Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.'

However the certified experts hired to contribute articles in more recent editions were selected, they tended to represent conventional opinion, and articles were kept tame enough to offend noone.

Literally all of the complaints are about them rejecting trash sources and debunked nonsense. Good on Wikipedia.

His complaint is that they do not allow sources of claims that contest the prevailing narrative (of some topics) and that this leads to a biased view of reality.

With JavaScript disabled, the text disappears in pretty animation on load. Good job unhred.com.

Why is Larry Sanger still trying to grab attention to himself with his old grudges? That he despises Wikipedia is not news. Heck, back when I was in writing class I wrote a comparative essay on Wikipedia and Citizendium, and this was like ten years ago, when I was learning English.

He built a powerful structure and it got taken over. Not a surprise.

I'm not sure this addresses the criticisms in his post. it's possible he's salty about the loss of power, but his complaint is that the site is systemically biased. a better rebuttal might be to show how it's not?

Ok. It's systemically biased BECAUSE it is a power structure. What power structure does the left not own, or at least have a lot of control over?

Look at the Trump Phenom. He isn't hated because he's bad or ineffective or corrupt. He is hated because he seized power and Isn't a leftist.