I'm not saying that the article is untrue. I'm not a historian. What I'm saying is that all content from this source should be treated with high skepticism.

The battle happened, there's no doubt. I agree TVP is biased as f. tho. Think Fox News if Trump was in power and Fox was state media.

Wikipedia absolutely can be propagandist. It's an incredibly attractive target for propagandists trying to insert their views and spins, and while the community generally manages to keep a rein on that for topic that get international attention, those which don't can be effectively captured by coordinated groups. To say nothing about the smaller international Wikipedias.

Wikipedia is extremely good at keeping and reinforcing a most popular point of view. Russians are using Wikipedia a lot, for example.

Many English Wikipedia articles about Eastern European history are propaganda from one of the sides. In some cases it's a deliberate effort by irredentist editors from whichever country to push their cause; in other cases, it's a result of editors from outside the region who can't read any of the the relevant languages and therefore don't understand that they are using biased sources uncritically.

> Or do you consider wikipedia also propagandist?

The Wikimedia Foundation itself is not, but there are absolutely cliques of editors pushing propaganda.