Unfortunately, it is a mistake to think that just because you are only presented with high quality facts (statements that are very likely to be true), that you are getting an objective view of the story. You would be surprised how unrepresentative a story can be made purely through omission or selective emphasis, and Wikipedia is very guilty especially of the latter. The talk pages are usually very revealing of what the articles fails to mention, if you happen to catch them before the discussion gets archived.
This is something a lot of people don't understand.
It is impossible to have an objective and bias-free source of information, simply because the amount of information that exists is unimaginably enormous. It's impossible for any single human mind to absorb everything that's happening, so we have to rely on services whose job is filtering that information into a small set of important bits.
By selectively choosing which bits of information you share or emphasize, multiple different sources can all technically be telling the gods honest truth, while also all pushing completely contradictory narratives.
Everyone is pushing a narrative, and it's critical that we all try to understand the incentives of the pushers of information we ingest.
I liked the way Howard Zinn (who had his own rather strong biases, of course) made that point in the afterword to A People's History of the United States:
>But there is no such thing as a pure fact, innocent of interpretation. Behind every fact presented to the world—by a teacher, a writer, anyone—is a judgment. The judgment that has been made is that this fact is important, and that other facts, omitted, are not important.
I learned this when I dated a law student while in college. They teach an entire class to the first year students dedicated to presenting the facts of the case, the way lawyers do in their opening statements. They actually had to create the set of facts for each side. It was really interesting how you could totally bias it by what you emphasized or left out and the different words used (i.e. word connotations).
But this an exaggeration. Some people are truly equivocal on a question, yet still able to muster the effort to write about it.
One way this happens is that some specific issue puts the author's internal values in tension. An example would be recall/impeachment of some corrupt official, where the tension is between the two goods of removing the bad actor from power, and maintaining the norm of orderly transition of government power.
What is great about Wikipedia's "Current events" portal is that you don't have to sift through tweets that are selected by the news feed algorithm to make you angry, or a stream of op-eds that are selected by an editor to do the same, in order to get to the facts. Much healthier psychologically while still staying reasonably informed.
