I agree it's generally accurate, but I think it suffers from "truth by persistence" rather than "truth by consensus". That is, the editors who are the most pers

I agree it's generally accurate, but I think it suffers from "truth by persistence" rather than "truth by consensus". That is, the editors who are the most persistent often "win". As an example, many years ago I edited some rather unflattering information to a controversial politician's Wikipedia article, properly referenced and cited of course. It was promptly removed by a "fan" and accused of "spreading lies" by referencing "obscure sites" or whatnot (the references were not obscure). I just ... gave up, because fuck this shit, and it's not all that important anyway. It is in the current version though, so someone took up the torch I guess. Either way, as a persistent and slightly-rude-but-not-rude-enough-to-be-banned editor you can exert a lot of control (and it takes quite a lot to be banned from Wikipedia in the first place). This is not a problem of "the left", or at least not uniquely so. In my example it was a right wing politician.