I used to think that English Wikipedia is biased, but now I've realized that it's a consensus machine. Wikipedia is just downstream of biased reporting. The editors are good about following whatever facts are most reliably citable.

Using North Korea as an example because I assume it's not a polarizing topic for people on HN. NK is especially interesting because we only have access to reporting from external news sources. Sure there's anti-regime bias, but that's just reflective of Western consensus. It's fascinating to see exactly when the editors decide it's appropriate to call Kim Jong-Un a "dictator". And also fascinating to see the editors flip back and forth on the term "supreme leader".

I wish this kind of edit-history/timeline/diff existed nicely in Wikipedia, but the existing tool in Wikipedia is too granular. I think a month view is the best for this kind of analysis.

https://memoryhole.app/wiki-timeline/compare?title=Kim+Jong+...

The truth is politically slanted too, according to some.