Perhaps it's because it's deceptive, dishonest & undermines trust.
Unless of-course you don't care about such things, then what's the problem? You don't have to read my comment, 'just' switch off the website.
The problem is that Wikipedia goes to great effort to shill for the CIA-NATO propaganda machine - whilst deceptively claiming they're an independent factual source. The problem is that the youth of Western Europe & The USA are growing up where truth is forbidden by power; buried by Google then muddied by Wikipedia & co.
The problem is when trust is eroded we cannot have meaningful interactions, we cannot even communicate, to the point that:
it doesn't matter if one says 'eric4smith is a rapist'; because (as you have conjectured): 'you don't have to read the comment'.
> The problem is that Wikipedia goes to great effort to shill for the CIA-NATO propaganda machine
What exactly are you saying? Are you suggesting that thousands of Wikipedia editors have all been subborned by Western military agencies? Or are you just referring to the overpaid Wikimedia C-suite?
Of course some Wikipedia editors are shills. Most MSM journalists are shilling for someone; if you pay attention to current affairs, you'll bump into a shill within seconds. But Wikipedia is largely self-correcting; even if the mainspace articles are biased, (a) there's page history; (b) there's per-editor contribution history; and (c) there's talk pages. I don't know of any other information source that provides so many tools that a critical reader can use to judge the content of an article.
The Wikimedia Foundation control Wikipedia, the subbordination is done by them. Editors are only as free as they permit - the two are inseparable, to suppose otherwise is as supposing chromium is independent from Google.
Of-course Wikipedia is a useful tool, so what? Are they exempt from criticism?
What is it you are saying? You abuse the English language; by definition a journalist is not a shill. Many mainstream shills may claim to be journalists, but that does not make them so.
Well, your definitions are eccentric. For example, Luke Harding is accredited as a senior journalist at The Guardian; he shills for the UK security services. I'm not sure whether we disagree as to what a shill is, or what a journalist is. The only journalists that I know of that are not shills are independent writers, like Jonathan Cook and Peter Hitchens.
What’s the problem? Wikipedia will always be free to use.
Some people will always support it, others won’t. Life will go on.
This is exactly like trying to cancel someone on YouTube. Just don’t watch the channel.