I trust Wikipedia because I edit on it, and I have no will to continue this conversation.

Me:

as a group

You:

everyone

Groups usually cancel bias. And the leftover bias is not “easily notable”

Ok, but I wasn’t the one implying Wikipedia editors as a group are biased.

Yes, because the “easily-notable bias” is just a result of discussions done at different times to different evidence, and claiming bias is an overgeneralization.

• Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth says:

This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

Verifiability is as important as truth.

But reliable sources are biased!

From WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources).

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

(Bolding mine)

But reliable sources are chosen by biased contributors!

OP attached to their comic repost RSP columns.

• Deutsche Welle: Reliability was never discussed in an RFC. Anyone complaining here of bias does not acknowledge their possibility (if they are not banned) of making an RFC on it.
• Voice of America: Discussed on RSN a few times. The last one is pretty interesting: Here
• Xinhua: Discussed here. ITT: It’s quite old, but Xinhua is very controversial.
• Telesur: Discussed here around seven years ago. Quite conclusive, I would say.

GIMP wants to release 3.2.6 and they’re looking for stuff they need to do to improve from 3.2.5