The evidence for it is Wikipedia itself

So literally just the Holy Scripture argument: "the Bible is true, and the evidence is the Bible"

So you’re doing the classic thing of putting the burden of responsibility for your ridiculous claim on to somebody else to disprove. A classic sign of somebody not arguing in good faith.

No, that was you making the claim that Wikipedia is pure unbiased fact and then putting the burden of responsibility on me to disprove it. But I know you don't actually know what "arguing in good faith" means, it's just a phrase you parrot after seeing it used on Reddit as magic incantation to win arguments.

How can I prove that Wikipedia only lists facts

If you don't have evidence for it, why did you claim it? Just use what ever proof you based your original assertion on, assuming you had any.

any evidence that I present, you will immediately disregard as untrue because of your preconceived bias.

Wow, real good faith there, telling me what I'm going to do ahead of time. Sounds like you have nothing and you know it.

I want you to link to any article, on any subject matter on Wikipedia (in English so we can actually read it, I know that trick) that proves your claim of bias. I genuinely don’t believe you will be able to because if you could provide this evidence, you would have linked to it in your original comment.

I literally already gave you an example, but you intended it. Seems like you saying that I would "immediately disregard as untrue because of your preconceived bias" was just you projecting your own behaviour on to me.

Your holy scripture arguement doesn’t work because Wikipedia isn’t a fixed source of stated reality, it’s a constantly changing constantly updated website.

So it only lists facts, it doesn't have a single biased article, but also its constantly changing.... Hmmm. So apparently it doesn't just state facts, it even changes what the facts are! Definitely nothing religious about that...

Even if an article had some bias, by the end of the first day that bias would have been corrected by someone who didn’t like the bias.

Orrrr a bias would have been introduced by someone who didn't like the lack of bias.

But you’re stating that there is a deep rooted institutional bias. I’d like you to indicate it please.

I'd like you to explain how you determined that the overwhelming white, western, male, neoliberal perspective that dominates Wikipedia represents the One True unbiased perspective on reality. I'd like you to explain how you determined that sources like Radio Free Asia and the NYT, which Wikipedia treats as authoritative, are inherently always factual and unbiased despite having frequently lied in the past.