Whether or not we can fully trust Wikipedia is one thing, and it is true that truth should not just be a result of frequency counting.
I'd say Wikipedia, like the scientific process, works in the limit; any snapshot may contain errors, but there's a process for weeding out errors that leads to conversion towards the right direction, if not always in a strictly monotonic fashion.
There are countries in which things said on Wikipedia are not permissible to be viewed, or where it is banned in whole. I prefer to live in a place where you can view everything (e.g, [1,2]) and make up your mind for yourself, weighing the evidence.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110512173914/http://seattletim...
[2] https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4...
[3] https://www.history.com/news/who-was-the-tank-man-of-tiananm...
When you have two polarizing sides, the extremist that are the most popular view might not even be close to reality or even the majority opinion. With two narratives that define their own "good" side and a "bad" side, the messy truth might not be found in news articles but rather in hindsight a few decades later (or fringe analysts that is struggling to survive).
Political topics do however get fairly good coverage by citing reliable sources of what kind of narratives have been made, and except for correct weighting, might give some clues about the truth.