There is a difference between unintentionally introducing a bias and propaganda . The latter is a guided by professionals. It is not an accident.

You are accusing Wikipedia of spreading propaganda? On behalf of who?

Wikipedia isn’t a person. Wikipedia isn’t doing anything.

Individuals and groups, be they ad-hoc formations, corporate backed, or nation-state backed routinely astroturf all corners of the internet and Wikipedia is a very big, very common target.

Sure but this thread is in response to a statement starting with "Wikipedia is biased".

I actually used the word biased in hopes of avoiding triggering someone like you by what I really meant. It is full of propaganda. Funded PR firm intentional propaganda and Wikipedia is complicit because they allow the propaganda they agree with and block the propaganda they do not agree with.

No I will not waste my time researching proof for someone that is being intentionally obtuse. If you have interest you can easily find it by doing some research.

It's impossible to produce such material with a complete lack of bias, sure.

I know of at least of one case in which a person publicly admits he is using Wikipedia to promote their political stances and who is right now at the center of an arbitration case in which he intends to silence opposition.

This is not that.

People who edit Wikipedia run the gamut from those that are zealous about neutral point of view up to and including people that do it for their own selfish purposes. But lets take the zealous NPOV type. If I were to try and do that, to try my hardest to produce an article which truly takes an NPOV stance, it would still come off biased to you because you and I can't possibly share the same idea about what is neutral. Based on some peoples venom here - including charges of propaganda - I suspect you all are just reading articles written by people with a different worldview than your own. I really don't understand this sense of unfairness or even conspiracy people have about it.

I'm really at a loss on how to make this any more clear.

You are looking at a case of a person LITERALLY admitting they are using it for propaganda and your reaction is "I'm sure it's actually not, it's actually neutral and it's just that it differs from your view". I'm sorry but I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

Do you think anyone here on HN uses this site for propaganda?

HN doesn't style itself as an encyclopedia for all human knowledge that's worth writing down.

I disagree. Reality is objective and publications all over the world like the BBC do a great job of maintaining journalistic standards. Wikipedia could ensure information is unbiased. You clearly enjoy the bias, and it conforms well to your own. If it didn't, I highly doubt I'd be hearing you defend bias with such a strange postmodernist argument.

You are actually agreeing with me. I'm saying it is biased, because everything is, and it is not offensive (or even avoidable) to have a bias. Ask someone in Afghanistan if the BBC is biased. BBC matches your bias I guess. It pretty well matches mine too, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize it carries one.