Wikipedia feels like a weird cross of social media, Ted Nelson's Xanadu and good publicity. Opinions will show up; if the opinion show up in another media source, it can be repeated as fact.

Moreover, Wikipedia has its own social grouping dynamics and it's own equivalents of gamification; it just seems 'serious' as the outcome is something that masquerades as factual. (This is an admittedly cruel take on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of comments about the inaccuracy of many Wiki articles that back my opinion)

A good Reddit opinion-based conversation is often useful, much like a good Wikipedia article can be. "How does the soup taste at Pho Daddy" is better answered by a social media post with a dynamic trust list than a list of ingredients.

(We don't really have the trust list, but we do have a list of previous posts that can use on Reddit to see if the person seems similar enough to us)

If there is an ideological slant in the reporting, itll reach the wikipedia page, as long as the source is deemed trustworthy.

hahaha you have too much faith in wikipedia. It's full of ideologues and power trippers.