Wikimedia is a platform, not a publisher, just like YouTube or Twitter. That's a little-understood, but fundamental part of the Wikimedia Foundation's identity.

Wikimedia is a platform, not a publisher, just like YouTube or Twitter. That's a little-understood, but fundamental part of the Wikimedia Foundation's identity. See e.g. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/10/05/a-victory-for-free-knowledge-florida-judge-rules-section-230-bars-defamation-claim-against-the-wikimedia-foundation/ https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/10/05/a-victory-for-free-kno... where they explicitly say, "the plaintiff argued that the Foundation should be treated like a traditional offline publisher and held responsible as though it were vetting all posts made to the sites it hosts, despite the fact that it does not write or curate any of the content found on the projects." (My emphasis.) (By the way, for an alternative view of that specific case, see – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-10-31/Opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... as well as https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgpnq/wikipedia-and-google-identified-wrong-man-as-a-serial-killer-for-years https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgpnq/wikipedia-and-google-... ) Liability is one consideration here. It is not uncommon for people to be libelled on Wikipedia, but the Wikimedia Foundation, as a platform, is protected from liability under Section 230. So they really have no interest in doing something that will result in their being held responsible for Wikipedia content – such as hiring experts to vet and correct said content. It will never happen: they are and want to remain a platform.