Bias in Wikipedia: Incel

I have written previously how Wikipedia is not only mob-controlled (by Wikipedia's own description, it has no central authority, team or organization that manages and vetoes its content, and is instead 100% maintained by random people on the internet), but with most political subjects it's highly biased. Oftentimes it cleverly disguises these biases by citing tons of references to third-party articles and other sources, but this is oftentimes done very selectively, only citing those sources that affirm the narrative being pushed in the article (in other words, there's strong selection bias when it comes to sources).

One thing I have noticed, and noted before, is that the lede of the article (ie. the text at the beginning of the article before the table of contents) is often a good indication of how biased the article is. For some reason, it seems, biased editors love to put all of their arguments and claims in the lede (probably to make sure that anybody who just skims articles by reading their lede sections will get the "correct" picture. It also makes sure that the reader is made aware of these "facts" as soon as possible, before going to the rest of the article. In other words, poisoning the well.)

The Gamergate article, as always, is the perfect example of this. It's, possibly, the most biased article in the entirety of Wikipedia, and obviously its lede reflects that perfectly. (Consider, for instance, that the word "harassment" appears a whopping 8 times in the lede alone.)

The ledes of public speakers, personalities and politicians who are hated by the regressive leftists also usually demonstrate this kind of bias (often with minute details being shoved into the lede, even though in normal articles they don't belong there. These minute details almost invariably paint an unfavorable picture of the person in question.)

Not surprisingly, the lede for the Wikipedia article "incel" is, of course, a full-on no-holds barrage.

Recently, somebody changed the lede (and a few other paragraphs in the article itself) to be more brief and neutral. This editor's version read like this:

Incels (a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates") are self-identifying members of an online subculture^[1][2] who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state self-described as inceldom.^[3]

This was very quickly reverted back to what it originally read (and the page was quickly locked):

Incels (a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates") are self-identifying members of an online subculture^[1][2] who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom.^[3] Self-identified incels are mostly white, male and heterosexual,.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]} Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy,^[1] self-pity,^[13] self-loathing,^[14] misogyny, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people.^{[6][12][15][16][17]} The Southern Poverty Law Center described the subculture as "part of the online male supremacist ecosystem" that is a member of their list of hate groups,^[18][19] and self-described incels have committed at least four mass murders in North America.

Which version do you consider more neutral, and which one more biased?

When I said "full-on no-holds barrage", I really meant it. The lede of the article wants to make it 100% certain that you absolutely hate and loathe these people. It wants to make it absolutely and completely clear that they are the absolute scum of the Earth (after all, they are all white, male and heterosexual, the unholy trinity.)

There's only one thing that we can be 100% sure of: That lede, and the entire article, isn't going to change. In fact, I bet it's only going to get worse (just like the Gamergate page). The mob will make sure of that.