Wikipedia has many problems, not least that there is concern over the "power" that a very small group of the very top contributors/reviewers make to the overall ecosystem. There are some charges of some of these people being able to "create and write history" due to their influence on the platform. One of the things we need to consider is how the repository of information determines fact. And one persons fact could easily be anothers fiction. There's also the added issue of the psychology of how you write a thing. For example, right now, people who are being critical of government in my country, especially on issues of freedom of speech, are being labelled as "hard right", despite the fact that politically them may not at all align with certain political persuasions. It's a very clever and devious way to ensure that powerful lobbyists can create the idea of a particular viewpoint being distasteful without having to come right out and saying it. This whole Fake News meme, which has spread over the last few years is a very clever way of shutting down opinion which isn't your own. I'm not saying that Wikipedia do this, by the way, only that by having pure decentralization can we ensure freedom of expression. And wikipedia is far from decentralized in my opinion...of course, my opinion may be fake news! :)