And the reason it cannot be fixed rests on the very nature of humanity and communication, which is that many times, people tend to be prideful, stupid and inarticulate. Thus, one does not "fix" a bad Wikipedia article so much as one outlasts the bad editors who keep writing crap and/or deliberately suppress opposing views.
An example of that would be the Wiki article for "Fact", which can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact Look at the talk page for this same article - and then look at the revision history for the article itself. Some literally absurd explanations for the meaning of the word "Fact" were kept in the article for far too long.
Oddly enough, there's another English Wiki out there, a "simple" one and they too have an article about "Fact", but with a much less cluttered talk page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact Why is this talk page (and article) it less cluttered? It's because there are fewer people there, and thus less persons pridefully defending their obvious errors.
So then how does one write the "lede" sentence/paragraph for such an article? Anyone who thinks can tell you that the word "fact" has a very broad application and a number of application-specific variations in meaning. However, a skilled writer, if allowed by the resident Wiki editors, could post a simple but apropos opening blurb. Where I do so so, I would say this "A fact is an item of information offered up as a genuine portrayal of an actuality. When offered by a bona fide reliable source, it's generally accepted as true, unless otherwise disproved".
Now, given that I'm the author of this blurb, and given that I too tend to be prideful and defensive of that which I write (and feel is true), am I the best arbiter of of the truth, precision and applicability of my blurb? The answer of course, is no, I am not. But neither is the mosh pit known as "Wikipedia".
Instead, what Wikipedia is a brute force battle royal; an extended donnybrook which plays out over weeks and months. And what do people do when caught up in a massive, extended brawl? They join forces and pile on the opposition to defeat them. And at any given moment, that's also what Wikipedia is: It's a small network of entrenched editors who stay aligned with themselves, fighting off all interlopers via the means of "Admin" status and collective self congratulatory behavior.
In fact, some of them go so far as to apply to themselves a user name which exalts them and seeks to place them beyond question. Here's a user account which is a great example of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neutrality
And as clearly evidenced by his Contributions history, by being a long-time editor who is part of the Wikipedia "Admin" club, User:Neutrality, has virtually unfettered leeway to edit, revert and opine; while at the same time, disallowing any effective rebuttal.
So no, the biases and other problems at Wikipedia cannot be fixed, not unless more people across a broader political mindset join and work their way up to Admin, so as to offset the entrenched left-leaning cabal which runs things there.
As George Carlin used to say "It's a big club, and you ain't in it"
And the reason it cannot be fixed rests on the very nature of humanity and communication, which is that many times, people tend to be prideful, stupid and inarticulate. Thus, one does not "fix" a bad Wikipedia article so much as one outlasts the bad editors who keep writing crap and/or deliberately suppress opposing views.
An example of that would be the Wiki article for "Fact", which can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact Look at the talk page for this same article - and then look at the revision history for the article itself. Some literally absurd explanations for the meaning of the word "Fact" were kept in the article for far too long.
Oddly enough, there's another English Wiki out there, a "simple" one and they too have an article about "Fact", but with a much less cluttered talk page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact Why is this talk page (and article) it less cluttered? It's because there are fewer people there, and thus less persons pridefully defending their obvious errors.
So then how does one write the "lede" sentence/paragraph for such an article? Anyone who thinks can tell you that the word "fact" has a very broad application and a number of application-specific variations in meaning. However, a skilled writer, if allowed by the resident Wiki editors, could post a simple but apropos opening blurb. Where I do so so, I would say this "A fact is an item of information offered up as a genuine portrayal of an actuality. When offered by a bona fide reliable source, it's generally accepted as true, unless otherwise disproved".
Now, given that I'm the author of this blurb, and given that I too tend to be prideful and defensive of that which I write (and feel is true), am I the best arbiter of of the truth, precision and applicability of my blurb? The answer of course, is no, I am not. But neither is the mosh pit known as "Wikipedia".
Instead, what Wikipedia is a brute force battle royal; an extended donnybrook which plays out over weeks and months. And what do people do when caught up in a massive, extended brawl? They join forces and pile on the opposition to defeat them. And at any given moment, that's also what Wikipedia is: It's a small network of entrenched editors who stay aligned with themselves, fighting off all interlopers via the means of "Admin" status and collective self congratulatory behavior.
In fact, some of them go so far as to apply to themselves a user name which exalts them and seeks to place them beyond question. Here's a user account which is a great example of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neutrality
As reflected by this user's Contributions history, User:Neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Neutrali... is one of the long-time guardians of the status-quo at Wikipedia.
And as clearly evidenced by his Contributions history, by being a long-time editor who is part of the Wikipedia "Admin" club, User:Neutrality, has virtually unfettered leeway to edit, revert and opine; while at the same time, disallowing any effective rebuttal.
So no, the biases and other problems at Wikipedia cannot be fixed, not unless more people across a broader political mindset join and work their way up to Admin, so as to offset the entrenched left-leaning cabal which runs things there.
As George Carlin used to say "It's a big club, and you ain't in it"