GBAtemp.net - The Independent Video Game Community

It's heavily biased towards the left, and has inconsistent rules surrounding acceptable sources.

That ^

Isnt the left wing good tho?

Not all the time, and not with incredibly heavy-handed bias like this - where Wikipedia prefers op-eds than actual primary sources for political pages.
They even consider WikiLeaks - which has never posted false news, as otherwise they would have been sued for defamation by now - to be an "unreliable source".

Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy is backwards; they require secondary sources instead of primary ones. Raw data and information, in their eyes, needs to be contextualised and edited by an approved secondary source, instead of being able to stand on their own.

So if someone writes something controversial on a blog, and a 'journalist' writes about it and conflates it to meet a certain political viewpoint, Wikipedia will use the resulting article. If someone then tries to use the original blog entry to debunk the biased misrepresentation, Wikipedia won't accept that, as the blog (despite being the primary source) isn't an "approved source".

Lastly, Wikipedia considers the New York Post newspaper to be unreliable, and thus not an 'approved source', yet The New York Times is accepted - because NYP is right-leaning and TNYT is left-leaning. Shouldn't they both be unreliable, since they're both tabloids, if there truly was a "Neutral" PoV?

Prettymuch what Akira said. This might anger a few people but just go to the Wikipedia article for Chris Chan or Kiwifarms and the bias becomes very blatant. They refuse to cite anything that is neutral or researched, and the secondary-sources rule is the mechanism that allows that, because only headline-worthy stories (first page of google) get Wikipedia coverage. Headline-worthy does not always mean realistic.