(Replying to PARENT post)
Where it might get “extreme” is on niche topics that few people care about. For example I remember some articles associated with the whole “audiophile” scene were claiming some silly things without much evidence behind them, but that’s pretty innocuous in my view.
(Replying to PARENT post)
The problem is real as I've mentioned elsewhere, but it's overwhelmingly a sourcing problem. There simply aren't many sources about non-Western or traditionalist (as opposed to modern/progressive) worldviews.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Have you tried to remedy this by editing any of those articles and backing up your edits with a solid factual argument?
(Replying to PARENT post)
Specifically en.wikipedia.org has a western (US/UK sphere of influence) worldview.
This is because en.wikipedia is/can be edited by everyone who speaks English: not just the USA, not just regular English speaking countries, but also all those countries that teach children English as a second language, (and a not insignificant smattering of people who learn English outside of school too)
When you compare countries around the world, The United States of America is said to lean rather right of center.
Thus from a US perspective you would expect en.wikipedia to appear to indeed be a bit on the left.
(this is not a comprehensive answer, but it does cover a lot of the ground)
(Replying to PARENT post)
I'm not sure what the fix is for these issues, but it does mean that I seek out opposing perspectives elsewhere when I read articles that concern such topics. It'll probably always be important for readers to seek multiple perspectives, including ones they disagree with, instead of blindly trusting Wikipedia to be correct. After all, it is written by humans.