Every bit of content has a POV, there is no getting around that. Neutral POV is the Wikipedia ideal - one they work towards but will never reach. They do as good a job as anybody at it.
Every bit of content has multiple POVs, and when you continuously present only the POVs associated with one part of the political spectrum, that's an avoidable bias.
> Actual encyclopedias do a much better job of it.
I can't validate that statement and neither can you. You didn't even say which one. Setting aside the fact that traditional encyclopedias aren't part of the internet that we are discussing in this thread, I will at least give you that the motivations of a traditional encyclopedia are more clear than the amorphous network of people who maintain Wikipedia.
I have a 1936 set of Encyclopedia Britannica on the shelf, you should read some of the articles in that.
Honestly I think it should be biased when it comes to politics. It should be unbiased in terms of evidence. If some narrative has no evidence, but a strong political following, that political following should contribute zero weight to the validity of the narrative. No evidence is no evidence.
