What makes you think Wikipedia is biased? The whole point of a consensus based community is to remove bias to the greatest degree possible.
Based on your comment, I'd say that it seems like you're simply angry that your particular political or religious bias isn't represented in articles. But you know what? *No* political or religious bias is suppose to be in articles. Because of that we get complaints from liberal wackos saying "Wikipedia is too conservative!" and from conservative wackos saying "Wikipedia is too liberal!". But in reality it is neither. It is just a more-or-less unbiased listing of facts. (Note that his only applies to major articles. Many minor articles still have a great deal of bias in them, but that's just because they haven't received enough attention yet. Peer review processes cause bias to decrease over time. That's just the nature of peer review. Peer review means that the more people that work on an article, the less biased it will be.)
I guess this is as good an example as any of the twisted ideology that lies at the root of Wikimedia's bias. The weird claim that there is "peer review" in Wikipedia is new to me; this claim is a firm step into megalomania? Most people would call this process of more users 'working' on an article "Might makes Right". - Brya 03:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Brya; We need some citations please. Which articles do you have a problem with.
There are a lot of different people each with their own opinions and information and experience and truth. Unfortunately we have found one persons truth often contradicts anothers. We have also found people adding stuff to wikipedia which they sincerely believe to be true, because they really want the world to work that way, while others sincerely believe the opposite.
The way we have chosen to resolve these disputes is by relying editors working together to to find the best version, defending their point of view by reference to external reliable sources.
This has moved the debate to a discussion of which sources are reliable but in my view it has worked very well.
The main alternative which has been proposed is to make articles sympathetic to the subject with multiple articles for controversial topics, each article sympathetic to a different point of view.