Nor was I referring to the quality of the search functions on those sites but rather to the quality of the content they provide - the very content you just dubb

Nor was I referring to the quality of the search functions on those sites but rather to the quality of the content they provide - the very content you just dubbed the good Web content we deserve. Wikipedia does have some good content but it is a steaming pile of ${excrement} when it comes to anything even remotely politically contentious as those articles tend to be hijacked by activist editors who allow nothing but their own narrative to remain. For such articles the talk and history pages are far more informative than the agitprop in the article. archive.org does not editorialise content so they are the better example here. They may be selective in which content they archive but I have not yet noticed any specific bias there - which I consider to be a good thing.