Some of that stuff, rather than deliberate ideology may be the writers doing what they can but not getting it quite right. You can always try correcting it yourself if there is a factual error and you have a suitable source to cite.

I appreciate a serious answer, and I have to say that I avoid articles on modern conflicts and people for most part, at least in part for the reasons you state. I’m not sure that it’s a singular bias so much as the usual, “Always online true believers of any stripe will always be far more likely to contribute, edit, and fight for their views than the rest of us.”

As a technical resource I love Wikipedia, as a quick reference it’s valuable enough.

I feel like you're one of the only people reading about Marxist topics on Wikipedia, given that most (intelligent) people genuinely interested on the topic will engage with primary sources. Very rarely do I read "below the fold" on any topic, but especially on topics concerning sociopolitical issues is my scrollbar completely untouched.

You may be raising criticism genuinely, but you're fighting a very uphill battle because many of the people who cry about Wikipedia bias would want, e.g., the article on Communism to start as it does on Conservapedia:

> Communism is a left-wing anti-democratic and violent ideology dedicated to overthrowing capitalism, replacing it with an unelected "dictatorship of the proletariat" by technocrats and an atheist elite.

which is, for lack of a more honest and concise word, retarded.