Someone with millions of edits does not de-facto have the systems in place, the time, and the power to influence any article he puts his mind to? What I posted is inference, not misinformation, and worth considering despite the downvote parade happening on it right now by pro-wiki shills.
To call what I posted misinformation is a sign of times. Inference is not misinformation and while I have no "fact checked" articles proving he manipulates wiki articles he is a defacto central power of Wikipedia whose contributions are vast. So vast, in fact, they shadow every other contributor by orders of magnitude. If this doesn't concern you I guess by all means, cite wikipedia in all your scholarly works. Isn't my problem, anyway. I don't use it and I don't donate to it. I have no dog in this race.
Ignoring Pruitt my point stands in general. Wikipedia edits spike during times of political strife, elections, major news, etc. They are edited so frequently that it's impossible to tell what is real and fake. This is the principle failing of any truly open system that does no KYC. It inevitably collapses under the weight of idiots (which have more density than smart people). If Wikipedia expects to be trusted authors should be credential-locked to fields and vetted by the community. Except that can't happen because then you'd have to pay for it, and then it's not wikipedia.
I'd rather have vetted experts writing articles on their fields (e.g. an actual encyclopedia) than any random shmuck off the street being able to contribute to an alleged body of "knowledge". Right now I can go contribute to the article on theoretical physics. Something I know nothing about. That should not be possible on any system alleging to be a source of truth.
In reality the internet is full of systems with open participation. We don't see them failing notably more or less often than other systems. I think a (personal, mental) model that makes inaccurate predictions is possibly flawed, and may need to be revisited a bit.
If you've looked into Epistemology before, you'll see that Capital-T Truth is a slippery thing to actually define properly. Indeed, thus, Wikipedia makes no claim to being a Source Of Truth. Wikipedia makes a more cautious claim. It claims to be an encyclopedia: A tertiary source representing what primary and secondary sources say about a matter.
So if you keep that in mind, you are actually quite welcome to contribute to an article on theoretical physics. If you put in the work to study, track down sources, and understand what they're saying, then that's a good start. If you can then use that information to write a coherent text explaining the concepts, then that's perfect.
There's no magic fairy dust that turns you into an expert. If you work hard and do the same things any other expert would be doing, then how should we treat you?
That's like saying billionaires, corporations, media etc don't have a lot of influence (or control) over elections because everyone can theoretically donate money, outvote them etc. too.