I consider myself more liberal than many, and yet I was struck by the obvious left slant of that page.

Not that it has inaccuracies, but its selection of facts and how they are presented, are definitely not neutral. From the header ("protests" or "riots"?) to the prevalence ("George Floyd protests in Minnesota"[0] and "George Floyd protests"[1], etc[2], [3], [4], [5] ...) to the descriptions and topics....

IMO such bias erodes their trust, and the more centrist will have to choose between one echo chamber and another and decide their facts by emotion.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to feel that the more "woke" a subject is, the less likely the facts will be presented fairly.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_...

Reminds me of this from Scott Alexander: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...

The URL of the article being linked to was "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots" (it has now been changed).

Compare the two: "Twin Cities whatever" used in the URL is a lot less political than "Goerge Floyd whatever". And the "riots" used in the URL is obviously something people were searching Google for.

Wikipedia could have used the more conservative name, and acknowledged that "the protests, also known as the "George Floyd Riots" (as is obvious from the URL)....

Don't get fixated on that example though - the whole article reads like it was written by the press team of a large corporation with a narrative to sell.