Varieties of criticism
Conservative criticism has nothing much to do with "left-wing" or "right-wing", because left-wing people are often very conservative, in the defined sense, while right-wing people can also be very radical, in the defined sense. The difference between "radical" and "conservative" has more to do with the belief in whether "a change to something genuinely new" is really possible and necessary. Radicals typically believe strongly that such change is highly desirable and necessary, and that it can be achieved. Their criticism is that there is "not enough" change. Conservative critics, by contrast, are very skeptical about any such change, because they feel the change is really "just another form" of something that already exists.
Criticism of Wikipedia
U.S. commentators, mostly politically conservative ones, have suggested that a politically liberal viewpoint is predominant. Andrew Schlafly created Conservapedia because of his perception that Wikipedia contained a liberal bias. Conservapedia's editors have compiled a list of alleged examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia. In 2007, an article in "The Christian Post" criticised Wikipedia's coverage of intelligent design, saying that it was biased and hypocritical. Lawrence Solomon of the "National Review" considered the Wikipedia articles on subjects like global warming, intelligent design, and "Roe v. Wade" all to be slanted in favor of liberal views. In a September 2010 issue of the conservative weekly "Human Events", Rowan Scarborough presented a critique of Wikipedia's coverage of American politicians prominent in the approaching midterm elections as evidence of systemic liberal bias. Scarborough compares the biographical articles of liberal and conservative opponents in Senate races in the Alaska Republican primary and the Delaware and Nevada general election, emphasizing the quantity of negative coverage of Tea Party-endorsed candidates. He also cites some criticism by Lawrence Solomon and quotes in full the lead section of Wikipedia's article on its rival Conservapedia as evidence of an underlying bias.