Exactly. I take issue with the article's implicit assertion that English Wikipedia is somehow less subject to manipulation than Wikipedias in other languages. A

Exactly. I take issue with the article's implicit assertion that English Wikipedia is somehow less subject to manipulation than Wikipedias in other languages. As Ryan Holliday pointed out all the way back in 2012, in his book Trust Me I'm Lying, the PR and reputation management industries love Wikipedia. They know that reporters are lazy, so in advance of an interview they'll go to Wikipedia for the background information, and that information sets the framing that they use for their narrative. If Wikipedia describes someone as a successful director, they'll get questions about movies they've directed, which actors they enjoyed working with most, etc. That same person described as a failed actor, will get questions about their acting career and why it never seemed to take off. Same person, same accomplishments, two completely different narratives, driven entirely by which facts are more prominent in the Wikipedia article.