Yes. But so? Any topic you didn’t know much about could be handled in an “appallingly biased” way on Wikipedia.
From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views:
Wikipedia Co-Founder Blasts “Appallingly Biased” Wikipedia Entry on Intelligent Design
When it comes to intelligent design, Wikipedia and its axe-grinding editors are ridiculously biased and unfair. And guess what? Even Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger agrees. He wrote as much last week on the Talk page for the Wiki article on ID, under the heading, “My $0.02 on the issue of bias”:
As the originator of and the first person to elaborate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, and as an agnostic who believes intelligent design to be completely wrong, I just have to say that this article is appallingly biased. It simply cannot be defended as neutral. If you want to understand why, read this. I’m not here to argue the point, as I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I’m just officially registering my protest. —Larry Sanger (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
A philosophy PhD, Dr. Sanger worked with Jimmy Wales to found Wikipedia in 2001. He is a self-described “zealot for neutrality,” and reasonably concludes that Wikipedia’s content on intelligent design is anything but neutral. This is the man who came up with the name “Wikipedia.” More.
Teachers who allow their students to cite Wikipedia as a source and/or to use it exclusively as a source of links have no business complaining even as Wikipedia becomes an intellectual toxic waste dump, let alone landfill.
The basic idea behind Wikipedia is wrong for a number of reasons. Here’s one: The model assumes that the people most likely to have the needed background and perspective are the ones who care most.
No. Anyone familiar with the behavior of trolls knows that trolls care more than anyone and usually have the least to offer the public. People who have the needed background and perspective tend to have much less free time than an angry troll.
Wikipedia cannot fix that problem without restoring the idea of qualified authority. In the meantime, it should be considered a reference source for trolls. Professionals, especially educators, should just not be using it.
See also: ID and Wikipedia as the ultimate post-modern encyclopedia
Wikipedians diminish another high achiever sympathetic to ID: Klinghoffer adds, “So it goes with Wikipedia, which your kids are probably consulting right now for their latest school assignment.”
Wikipedia founder wades into fake war on fake news
Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy
How Wikipedia can turn fiction into fact (Sourced enough times, the fiction becomes “troo”)
Wikipedia: The world of heavily edited unfacts
Wikipedia as astroturf
Wikipedia’s declining stats
Wikipedia hacked by elite sources now (The main problem is that the people who use Wikipedia do not care whether it is false or true. “Wikipedia is my library” is the new diagnostic for irresponsible laziness.)
When you disappear from Wikipedia is when you matter, apparently. Klinghoffer also provides a sample of people who, according to Wikipedia, are supposed to be notable compared to paleontologist Bechly (show showed sympathy for ID). Judge for yourself.
Whackapedia whacks a civil liberties group
Is social media killing Wikipedia?
How Wikipedia can turn fiction into fact (Sourced enough times, the fiction becomes “troo”)
Wikipedia: The world of heavily edited unfacts
Wikipedia as astroturf
Wikipedia’s declining stats
and
Mathematician complains Wikipedia is promoting “pseudo-science” of multiverse (Then there were the minor revelations that core articles “don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-ranking quality scores” and that some “editors” are paid by outside sources.)