Skimming the revision history of any non-recent nontechnical page shows you that the editing process, rather than revealing a steady dialectical progress, is just a constant back-and-forth churn of competing systems of thought. The winner is the one who can sacrifice the most time for vigilance and simulating an appearance of reasonableness. Of course moderation mitigates this state of affairs somewhat, but by the nature of Wikipedia, the ideal of impartiality, moderation cannot mediate truth; it can only raise the cost of contribution. As a result Wikipedia's model resembles proof-of-work, ceding governance to the fiercest advocates and wasting lots of energy.
I believe we'd be better off with real intellectual diversity. Replace the melting-pot model with a federation, a la mastodon, where any topic can be represented by multiple articles from different wikis that have different specialties. The indexing needs to be federated as well, as different groups will want to in-/exclude different alternatives. But just relieving the single pressure point that Wikipedia represents should offer huge benefits to the ecosystem.