Wikipedia does have a somewhat liberal bias in general, it's just what you get with educated people. I'm going from memory here, but in the earlier days of the Internet, many people tried to start websites that pitted liberals vs. conservatives in an essay format. It didn't work.
The problem was that conservatives do poorly when they have to argue facts and assumptions and aren't allowed to control the narrative. Wikipedia is merely reflective of this. On the radio, where they do not have to argue the facts and they can control the narrative, conservatives do far better than liberals.
What hurts conservatives the most is their anti-science stance. Or more accurately, they treat science like a smorgasbord, picking and choosing what they want to believe. That won't work on Wikipedia in most cases. (Although Wikipedia editors are infamously guilty of this on fringe sciences.)
Now I'm deeply critical of Wikipedia and it has massive flaws that deeply damage its credibility, but this goes far beyond Wikipedia. It is a fundamental difference in how liberals and conservatives think.
