The problem with Wikipedia and bias

I decided to try to clarify the “fascist” references by adding this section to Wiki’s “Por qué no te callas?” page:

While there was indeed vigorous debate over not simply investment but privatisation of basic services in Latin America, according to Chavez, in public statements at the summit and soon after (and as reported on Venezolana de Television and Venezuela Analysis) his reasons for calling Aznar a fascist were far more specific than those suggested by Time magazine:

• Aznar in 1999 had urged President Clinton to bomb Serbian radio and television
• Aznar's government, along with the Bush administration, openly backed the April 2002 military coup against Chavez
• Aznar actively participated in the “illegal” and brutal invasion of Iraq, on the basis of false assertions about weapons of mass destruction.

Chavez also recounted, after the summit, that at an early meeting with Aznar he (Chavez) had asked how countries like Haiti would survive under the neoliberal (open market) regime? Aznar's response, according to Chavez was: "they've already screwed themselves".

However very soon after adding this, my entire section was deleted by a Wiki administrator who said to me, in the Wiki talk section:

I removed this section to the talk page, for further work; it has some clear POV [“point of view”] and sourcing issues, and appears to be original research/synthesis, but perhaps something can be salvaged.

When I said I thought that my section was better sourced than the rest of the article, the administrator replied:

The rest of the article is scrupulously sourced. First, Zmag is a highly biased source. Second, you have strung together conclusions from several different sources into a whole … That is, you are presenting your own conclusions rather than conclusions of a secondary, reliable journalistic source. And finally, the text is POV … [for example when] you introduce POV language like "brutal invasion of Iraq". … You also cited VenAnalysis [my note: actually Venezuelanalysis.com] in the text (another highly biased source) … you should discuss and come to consensus before re-inserting the text.

So here was Wiki’s problem with clarifying the Chavez explanation of Aznar as a “fascist”: the BBC was OK but ZNet and Venezuela Analysis were both unusable “biased” sources, unlike Time magazine. No “original research” was allowed but rather reportage based on administrator-determined “reliable” sources. I was urged to agree on a “consensus” with the Wiki administrators. I gave it up as a bad bet.

The result is that, according to Wiki, amplifying its “reliable” sources such as Time magazine, and despite what all the other online sources tell us, Aznar was apparently called a fascist simply because he supported “free markets”. Further, even if the war on Iraq was illegal it was not a “brutal invasion”. That is apparently a “point of view”.

Here is history rewritten, by North American “consensus”. The full story is still out there, but English speakers will have to look a bit harder, because you won’t find it on Wikipedia.