Sure, ‘Wikipedia is maintained by an open community’, except it is actively monitored and edited by a group of moderators who tend to have trouble hiding their political bias, for example when they prohibited users from mentioning New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong’s anti-white racist tweets on her entry.
Again, the left-wing bias in Wikipedia shows in the article about the Christchurch terror attacks. The introduction of the Wikipedia entry links the killer to ‘white supremacy and the alt-right’. Further down, the entry mentions that “Islamophobia has increased worldwide”. Islamophobia does not actually exist, for a phobia is an “irrational fear”. But Wikipedia defines it as “Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims generally, especially when seen as a geopolitical force or the source of terrorism“, so let’s humor them.
Most citations throughout this entry refer to opinion pieces from left-wing media like The Guardian, Huffington Post and New York Times. These “anti-Muslim policies in many countries” turn out to be six countries and are mostly about regulations banning full-face veils, religious symbols (of all kinds) for public sector officials and employees and “anti-sharia bills”. All of these can be viewed as beneficial for either national security, religious equality, equality between men and women or LGBT rights. All issues that have been abandoned by the left.
Interestingly, islamic terrorist get a significantly different treatment on Wikipedia. The only mention of the context of jihadist terrorists is “ISIL” or “ISIS” – no “rise in Islamic extremism”, no “string of related terror attacks”. While the Christchurch shooting is clearly presented as being part of a trend, Islamic terror attacks are presented as though they are singular, unrelated incidents – and merely a response to the foreign policy of Western nations. No mention of Islam or the Quran as a motivator.
Even when similar attacks are mentioned, like in the November 2015 Paris attacks entry, their ideological relation is kept hidden: “France had been on high alert since the January 2015 attacks”. It seems relevant that those attacks were also carried out by radical Muslims, no? Not to Wikipedia apparently, where it is deemed more relevant that the burqa was banned in some countries and that is somehow the breeding ground for an extremist killing 50 people.
Wikipedia’s moderators are particularly active on entries that draw high visitor counts and that deal with controversial subjects, or current news events. These differences are not coincidences.