Wikipedia pretends to be a new kind of  crowd-sourced, non-profit "people's encyclopedia" containing fair and unbiased material.  In theory, anyone is allowed to edit material, thus providing a wide range of input rather than one expert's ideas as in conventional encyclopedias.

I have written one entire entry, on my great-grandfather, who was a candidate for president.  I have edited a few other entries to correct errors.

The theory is great, but in practice Wikipedia, like most media ventures, is a vehicle for liberal ideas.  Two examples may suffice.

The Wikipedia entry on fascism follows the liberal line that the political spectrum runs from fascism on the right to communism on the left.  This is nonsense and the basis for the constant references to conservatives as "Nazis" by liberals, who fancy Nazis to be fascists.  Any meaningful political spectrum would run from total freedom, or anarchy, on the right to totalitarian government with no freedom on the left.  The Nazis were, in fact, socialists, and as Jonah Goldberg wrote in Liberal Fascism, they differed from the Soviet communists only in methods, not intended results.

When I edited the entry to provide some balance, my edit was rejected in its entirety.

In its entry on Fox News, Wikipedia says, "Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and conservative causes."  I added to that paragraph, "just as networks such as CNN and CBS have been accused of biased reporting in favor of liberal causes."

It took the editors eight minutes to reject and remove my addition.

This despite the fact that the entry has this label:

This article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism. Please expand this article with properly sourced content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, event notability guideline, or encyclopedic content policy.

On CNN, Wikipedia is much more laudatory and has only a few paragraphs suggesting any bias.  Even that has a cautionary label saying:

This section only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject.  Please help improve this article by adding more general information. The talk page may contain suggestions. (November 2017)

Both CNN and Fox have a separate topic on "controversies," along with other news outlets.

On many matters, Wikipedia's information is useful.  When it comes to politics, you are likely to get the same viewpoint you would get from the New York Times or CNN.  The gatekeepers make certain of that.