Wikipedia has become a Propaganda Website. Readers, should be aware of the inherent bias in Wikipedia, and seek out other sources to corroborate information on articles that lack a large number of revisions over time. Here’s how we know Wiki is propaganda because of it’s severe Left-Wing bias..
From George Soros’ Tides Foundation Website: “Wikipedia Got $2 Million From Tides That Reinforced Its Sharp Turn To The Political Left
In 2010, Tides granted $2 million to Wikimedia Foundation, the fundraiser and manager of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. The “General Support” grant was a blank check to encourage years of left-wing Wikipedia editing and administration to concentrate on sabotaging libertarian and conservative entries. This grant encouraged the corruption of the Wikimedia Foundation’s motto, “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That’s our commitment.” In controversial entries, that commitment is not being lived up to and is misleading donors about the nature of their product.
The Foundation, which is the funding source and manager of the Wikipedia, freely allows leftist editors to hijack the Wikipedia profiles of libertarian and conservative organizations with libelous statements and to censor any libertarian or conservative views on controversial issues such as climate change and education. The Foundation’s executive director Lila Tretikov and board members are doing nothing to check hostile Wikipedia editors who engage in editing wars between free-speech and ideology-only editors.
“Wikipedia Co-Founder Says Site Is ‘Badly Biased’ Toward The Left”
Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal — or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash. You might find this to be objectively correct; but you cannot claim that this is a neutral treatment, considering that the other major U.S. party would treat it differently. On such a topic, neutrality in any sense worth the name essentially requires that readers not be able to detect the editors’ political alignment.
On the other hand, the coverage of President Trump is right out of the liberal manual. Two scholars, Zhu and Greenstein identified some 4,000 articles that appeared in both Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia, and determined how many of each of these code words were included, in an effort to determine overall bias and direction.
They found that in general, Wikipedia articles were more than twice as biased—with 73 percent of them containing code words, compared to just 34 percent in Britannica.