Wikipedia: where truth dies online

s/Wikipedia/any publication

Yet another article complaining that articles on subjective topics are vulnerable to subjectivity. These articles are a dime a dozen, almost never look outside their specific little bubble-of-complaint, and have been going on for almost all of WP's 13-year history. This particular article is at odds with itself, because it complains that the moderators are censorious and overbearing, and also that WP can't police itself. So... moderators should take a stronger hand? Or a weaker one?

Wikipedia is less worthless than this blinkered, agenda-pushing article.

Because of how many edits we were making (at least 20 a day) we have witnessed politics and lobbying on Wikipedia. The worst are unfortunately subjects that could by any extent critique US, UK, French or Russian governments, history, monopoly or news.

We have seen highest placed people with absolute power just removing any content without reason and blocking further changes.

One day I got in to the conversation with one of the "untouchable" - admin with small amount of edits etc but for some reason high in ranks. I got in to argument as he removed 500+ words improvement of pretty dead article about some delicate subject (heavy industry related) - this included removal of some links to large companies (they were unrelated though and we placed in exchange links to government institutions and few scholar research). Argument was something like "I would like you to let us know the reason for removing our edits." after no answer for 7 days I sent "If we wont get answer within 48 hours we will be forced tp take this case up as reverse seem as selfpromotion".

Result - around 2 thousands quality edits removed (we had probably links to our related article customers on only ~200 edits). Complete removal of our accounts, blacklisting WHOLE IP ranges from our office and probably hundreds of other regular users. That is how Wikipedia is neutral...

The primary problem is that - like google - wikipedia has been too successful. What can happen now is that when a new issue becomes newsworthy:

(1) one side grabs control of the most relevant wikipedia page and slants it in their direction by the simple expedient of giving their side "the last word" in every argument and being ever-so-slightly more strict about sourcing for claims made by the other side than claims made for theirs.

(2) Lazy journalists skim wikipedia to see what they should think about the issue and write news stories that reflect the slant wikipedia intially had.

(3) Active editors use the articles written in step (2) to reference their own slanted claims and make the article even MORE one-sided.

And so on. I don't really see an answer to this circular dynamic other than perhaps: train journalists to look at the Talk page too?