I completely agree, though they have an interesting policy where they themselves cannot be a primary source of information but can only quote secondary (news) sources.
The aim of this policy is to stay as impartial as possible, so that a Wikipedia page can link to another page, but not cite another Wikipedia page as a news source.
Great in theory, but the reality is that they remove hundreds of pages of content where the primary sources of that page (usually a news website) is no longer accessible (archive.org or otherwise).
Right-wing news media can therefore win in the longrun by simply keeping their news sources always online and available for Wikipedia to source, since left-wing news media is more likely to have expired links. Overtime this will compound to a right-wing bias.
The best thing for anyone to do therefore is to fund the archiving sites. Archive.org in particular is a crucial piece of news infrastructure keeping Wikipedia balanced.
I completely agree, though they have an interesting policy where they themselves cannot be a primary source of information but can only quote secondary (news) sources.
The aim of this policy is to stay as impartial as possible, so that a Wikipedia page can link to another page, but not cite another Wikipedia page as a news source.
Great in theory, but the reality is that they remove hundreds of pages of content where the primary sources of that page (usually a news website) is no longer accessible (archive.org or otherwise).
Right-wing news media can therefore win in the longrun by simply keeping their news sources always online and available for Wikipedia to source, since left-wing news media is more likely to have expired links. Overtime this will compound to a right-wing bias.
The best thing for anyone to do therefore is to fund the archiving sites. Archive.org in particular is a crucial piece of news infrastructure keeping Wikipedia balanced.