> Mind giving some examples?
Google can help you with these questions, to your own satisfaction.
This is not a winnable debate, but differing views exist.
This is an incomplete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_o...
https://www.quora.com/Am-I-the-only-frustrated-former-Wikipe...
etc.
The dubious nature of wikipedia's editing is recorded within books and articles from over the last decade that are casually discoverable from google. AFAIK, anyone who implies they aren't aware of the biases of editors, are either willfully ignorant (since this is covered under multiple topics within wikipedia itself) or trolling.
All the criticism of Wikipedia that you raise is valid, but there are some things implied in your posts that are dubious:
* That there exists an encyclopedia better than Wikipedia (or some other Wikimedia project).
* That Wikipedia can just be ignored.
Considering the placement Wikipedias currently have, it is hard to imagine a better or more influential project being created, so we might as well try improving what already exists.
Nitpick: Sanger is not part of Wikipedia or the WMF as far as I know.
> t's not even just political content, it's getting to the point where history is being actively re-written and re-interpreted to match a radical narrative.
Mind giving some examples?
> In some sort of temporal example of humour, I've gone back to recommending people use Britannica as a starting point and for surface level reading.
In what way could Britannica possibly be better than Wikipedia. It is usually based on a single viewpoint, instead of Wikipedia's thousands.