On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Ian Woollard wrote:
The thing is, it takes a conspiracy within the Wikipedia's rank and file to bias an article significantly over a long period; otherwise normal editing and then RFCs and so forth will tend sort it out.
Yeah, that Siegenthaler thing was corrected in a few hours. And the Brian Peppers one was deleted immediately.
Believing that there is no such thing as a biased article on Wikipedia is an excessively optimistic point of view. It doesn't take a conspiracy; it just takes a group of editors willing to push the bias through, and maybe an admin or two willing to look the other way because it's not worth the trouble (also see: spoiler warnings). I suppose you could call anything which involves more than one editor a "conspiracy", but it's not a conspiracy in the sense of backroom meetings and evil plans to deliberately mess things up.