They don’t really want to take a position but they more or less tell us:
AllSides uses Wikipedia frequently as a source on our balanced topics pages, and it is the 13th most popular website in the world, so Wikipedia’s bias is worth discussing. Sanger has accused Wikipedia of bias, and some have noted the site’s entries related to communism and socialism fail to mention the crimes and genocides committed under those regimes. Studies have found Wikipedia employs left-wing bias in its word choice, relies more on left-wing news sources for its citations, and sanctions conservative editors at a 6 times higher rate. People typically point to five studies that have found evidence of Wikipedia’s left-wing bias; AllSides hasn’t found any claims of conservative bias leveraged at Wikipedia; the encyclopedia Conservapedia was created in response to purported Wikipedia liberal bias.
Wikipedia aims to be an unbiased, neutral source. However, Sanger has said Wikipedia’s neutral point of view is “dead,” and that Wikipedia now “endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call ‘false balance’. The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.”
Julie Mastrine, “Is Wikipedia Biased?” at Perspectives Blog
If you rely on Wikipedia, you are consenting in advance to being misinformed by its trolls. The trolls are its biggest problem. There. We told you.
Note: The concept of “false balance” means that the journalist can get out of relaying information that supports a different view from his own.
See also: Wikipedia’s bias meets a free-speech alternative. The famously free encyclopaedia’s pages on abortion, communism, and historical figures reveal a left-leaning bias. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view “is dead”, declares co-founder Larry Sanger, who is now launching a free-speech alternative.