Many articles with a blatant left-wing bias have been mentioned over at /Joshua/what-wikipedia-articles-will-i-judg
According to Wikipedia, this is an unfair characterization:
In a 2023 interview with Lex Fridman, when asked if Wikipedia has a left-leaning bias, Wales said that:
Yeah, so I don't think so, not broadly. And I think you can always point to specific entries and talk about specific biases, but that's part of the process of Wikipedia. Anyone can come and challenge and to go on about that. But I see fairly often on Twitter, some quite extreme accusations of bias. And I think actually I don't see it. I don't buy that. And if you ask people for an example, they normally struggle and depending on who they are and what it's about. So it’s certainly true that some people who have quite fringe viewpoints and who knows the full rush of history in 500 years, they might be considered to be pathbreaking geniuses. But at the moment, quite fringe views. And they're just unhappy that Wikipedia doesn’t report on their fringe views as being mainstream. And that, by the way, goes across all kinds of fields.
So surely there should be equally many examples of right-wing bias.
1,000
3.00https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_(Christianity)
I admit I'm not super familiar with the Wikipedia rules so it might not count, but to me it seems this page is about an extremely controversial religious stance (the book of Revelation will literally happen), without any significant mention of criticism other than a brief mention in the beginning that other Christian beliefs exist, and a whole section dedicated to listing proponents.
A nice explanation of why this asymmetry exists.
There are a lot of cases where politicians promote policies that are considered foolish by economists. And sometimes those politicians are on the left side of things. And sometimes the Wikipedia pages seem to agree with the economists. So those could be considered "right-wing". Articles on rent control and rent regulation would be an example.
Ok I come with another one, and this time I am sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
Although the make some space in the intro for critics and a mention of the repression during the dictatorship, the whole article centers on the performance of the economy, the policies and ends up with the "current" Chilean economy. This article makes no mention of the inequality in Chile, even worse, counts it as decreasing. Makes no mention of the recent Social uprising in Chile due to the lack of social security these exact measures made, and doesn't even entertain the Idea of Chile being the only society in history that experienced "Authoritarian Capitalism" which is a very common Left-wing talking point. A common quote during the 2019 uprising in Chile was "Chile is the birthplace of neoliberalism and it will be its grave". None of that picture is painted here at all. As a last point and even worse: The article makes no mention of the biggest disappointments brought by the economic policies. The AFP's (Private pension companies, enforced by law), The privatization of Water Rights and others.
For a left-wing POV on "The Miracle of Chile" please read:
https://www.ciperchile.cl/2021/11/03/el-mito-del-milagro-del-libremercado/
Also by going to the "Talk" section of the article we can see that other people have already pointed out the Right-wing editorial direction. Similar things can be seen in the "History" section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochetism
This two entries on the EN version of wikipedia are pretty inoffensive with only one mention of human right abuses in Pinochetism and not one mention of the negative consequences of the policies of the Chicago Boys. In contrast, the ES versions on the same exact copy paint a very different picture with more focus on the totalitarian side.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher might also be a good example, eugenics contributions and support mostly de-emphasized.