Wikipedia is widely mirrored, pseudonymous for writers, anonymous for readers (unlike YouTube!), possessed of internal policies against most kinds of censorship, and quite practically inconvenient to censor externally. Certainly you could do better on these axes, but Wikipedia is already getting an enormous amount of vital information to people despite other people wanting to suppress that information.
The censorship on Wikipedia is internal. Biased articles locked from public editing, delete hungry maintainers that gatekeep content away from the site. Sure some countries can block it, but the subtle internal censorship is far more damaging because it's easy for people to overlook/write off
Latest example I've seen is the article for Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's under "extended-confirmed-protection", listed as a "Good article". Yet starts right off with the summary, "Marjorie Greene,[3] is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right[4] conspiracy theorist[5] serving as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district.[6]"
Those kind of abstract accusations do not belong in an encyclopedia article, and while there's a wealth of "citations" buried under the [5], none are anything other than news articles repeating the same accusation. It's baseless mudslinging that is the exact opposite of sticking to provable individual claims and facts, like a proper encyclopedia article should consist of.
Granted, it's not an insurmountable bar as it appears anyone with 500 edits can begin to participate. However, it shows a clear attempt to control the narrative to a specific one, and erecting barriers against changing that while officially endorsing the current one. It spans greater than just that, and seems common across other political articles on Wikipedia.
Hmm, by saying that the accusations are "baseless", you seem to be saying that she's not actually a conspiracy theorist. But it's not just repetitions of a flat accusation; for example, NPR quoted her as saying, "There's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles out, and I think we have the president to do it." (Evidently she's also claimed that the Clintons had John F. Kennedy Jr. killed, that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin performed a human sacrifice in order to drink a child's blood, that the damage to the Pentagon 20 years ago was due to a missile rather than an airplane impact, and that the UN is committing genocide against white people.) Are you saying that NPR was lying in attributing that quote to her, or that she did say that but somehow is nevertheless not a conspiracy theorist? Or am I misinterpreting your claim of "baseless mudslinging"?
It seems to me that describing Marjorie Taylor Greene as a "far-right conspiracy theorist" is just as encyclopedic and verifiable as describing Charles Manson as "an American criminal who led the Manson Family" or Jeffrey Dahmer as "an American serial killer and sex offender who committed the murder and dismemberment of 17 men and boys". Why do you disagree?
