This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia that relate to United States public policy:
- Wikipedia's entry for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination. Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination, and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
- Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
- April 24th was the anniversary of Operation Eagle Claw, which was President Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia entry explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia entry omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election. In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
- Wikipedia places the American Exceptionalism article under the category of ethnocentrism, but does not do this to groups like La Raza and the New Black Panthers, who are actually ethnocentric.
- Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law." After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article, but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
- Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic". In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
- Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service definition" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the United States, Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary Theory". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, liberal "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.
- Wikipedia deleted 9/12 Candidate page (twice) due to lack of notability. Creator blocked because his real name does not meet username policy and editor (me) blocked for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
- VoteVets.org is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. 
- Just like the liberal-aligned MSM, Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow liberals. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws 
- For a period of time (January 4, 2008 - April 5, 2008), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
- Wikipedia's gossip and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White. The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.
- The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C. This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
- Wikipedia's entry on censorship omits any reference to liberal censorship of classroom prayer, pro-life advertisements, conservative newspapers on college campuses, or intelligent design in school.
- Wikipedia has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States." It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite John Lott, the leading expert whose studies support guns.