There are legitimate complaints to be made about Wikipedia. It's a pity this author chooses his handful of pet political issues and spends most of time arguing

There are legitimate complaints to be made about Wikipedia. It's a pity this author chooses his handful of pet political issues and spends most of time arguing about the summary sections of certain pages. And most of the complaints are "how come they aren't making a big deal about the things I want them to". Man, can you believe how unfair Wikipedia is to Stalin? They didn't talk about any of the nice things people said about him? Ultimately, these complaints are incredibly self-defeating. The point about Wikipedia is that literally anyone can change it. If you don't like the information presented, you are more than free to actually fix it instead of bitching on the internet. But it turns out you will actually have to put in research, provide valuable information, work with other volunteers to establish consensus, and survive the scrutiny of every reader. And no on will pat you on the back or hand you internet points. And it turns out that a lot of these random ideas, like Hunter Biden's totally real laptop or the deep state plants in the January 6th riots might very well be true, but in no way do we get to stop the train on every stop so that every fringe viewpoint can get on board. Or no one who believes in this stuff is actually willing to put in the work. If your entire political identity is that you would rather pick up your ball and go home to complain rather than put in the work to establish your points, I say good riddance. I don't want your lazy tropes on Wikipedia.