User:Username6892/We can't prevent bias

All media sources, and all syntheses of sources, are biased to some degree. Wikipedia needs to cite reliable sources to be trustworthy as the editors alone are not reliable sources. Allowing editors to simply write what they think the truth is would be a disaster if the editor was incorrect, which is bound to happen. Thus, we need to defer to people who know better than us who agree on what is true so we can be confident that what we are writing is true.

To ensure all our information is factual, we are sometimes unable to use sources aligned with particular points of view due to their poor fact-checking record. This is particularly apparent in regions where freedom of the press is limited and political movements where falsehoods are rarely questioned. We underrepresent these points of view as a side effect of ensuring we are telling the truth as much as possible. Since our standard of a good source is simply one that fact-checks what it says and not one that represents all points of view well, we may neglect things that are only represented by sources with a poor fact-checking record, even if what they are bringing up should be covered.

When the media environment is good and all sides fact-check well, all sides can be accurately represented as they believe in the same basic facts. When one side rarely questions falsehoods, reliable sources are forced to side with the other side on that issue, leaving good sources all biased against particular points of view. Since this is the present situation and it shows no sign of stopping any time soon, Wikipedia must side with whatever good sources it gets. If that leaves important issues or coverage of certain regions downplayed due to good sources' bias against reporting on them (whether due to politics and/or geography), we can not report on it well unless the other side provides us with sources willing to fact-check well, including against any falsehoods that might help them.