I have certainly edited quite a few inaccuracies and misrepresentations over the years. Example: the Wikipedia page of a certain controversial figure once contained a sentence along the lines of "in 2016 Duckburg Times revealed that Donald Duck had a criminal history". When checking the reference it was something like a disorderly conduct and resisting arrest misdemeanours at a party when they were 18 (over 20 years ago) or something along those lines and some minor traffic citations. Is some stupid drunken thing they did when they were 18 (no felonies) a "criminal history"? I don't think anyone would phrase it as such.
This is the kind of "bias" people with axes to grind can put in; I don't even think it's intentional (or not always, at least) because summarizing an entire story is hard, but the entire story was already a red herring hit piece IMHO, and summarizing it as "criminal history" a horrible summarisation of said red herring. But ... people will read the Wikipedia article and go "zomg, that guy is a criminal!!!!"
I came across a case where a disgruntled former lodger added stuff like that to a woman academic's Wikipedia biography, citing purported court documents (alleged driving offences) that had never been the subject of a press report. The whole thing was presented under the heading “Brushes with the law” and took up more than half the body of the biography.
This is the kind of "bias" people with axes to grind can put in; I don't even think it's intentional (or not always, at least) because summarizing an entire story is hard, but the entire story was already a red herring hit piece IMHO, and summarizing it as "criminal history" a horrible summarisation of said red herring. But ... people will read the Wikipedia article and go "zomg, that guy is a criminal!!!!"