zlacker

It's not that easy.

There's bureaucracy that makes this nearly impossible.

Wikipedia sources include liberal news media (e.g. CNN) but blacklist others (Fox News). So it is highly biased by the rules they set up.

To challenge the sources you need to become an admin, of which there are only 82. And they are anonymous, so you cannot call them out for misinformation or bias.

The edit history is present and you can see "tampering" or bias on many articles, in the form of reverted clarifications citing blacklisted sources or other reasons. There are many examples, one that I was following last year was about "Yasuke", which turned out to be based on very debatable source at best, or likely complete fabrication since it was propagated by one historian who was proven to be fraudulent.

It's been called out many times. Most recently by the 1 and half hour long interview of Wikipedia employee by Tucker Carlson.

But just because the history is there, it doesn't really matter. Some random person looking something up will not see the history.

>>altreg+(OP)
It literally is that easy. The edit history is public precisely so you can identify when the hasbara and wumao goons plaster up their propaganda. If they make a citation that comes from a sketchy or unsubstantiated source, you can contest it and have the misinformation removed. This happens pretty often with tabloid-aligned cable outlets, including Rupert Murdoch's Fox network. Obviously it's less of a problem for outlets with fewer retractions, such as Reuters and AP. If that's "highly biased" then Fox needs to reflect on their own opportunism and journalistic integrity.

Like I said originally - Wikipedia is an annotated source aggregator. If it so happens that the liberal-aligned sources are the only ones reporting on war or hate crimes, then you'll have to excuse the moderators for ignoring the protests of Fox News Australia and Times of Israel. Your reputation matters, in journalism.