No, we love Wikipedia and all the obvious abuses pisses us off more than we benefit from a momentary partisan edge.

Small potatoes when at the end of the day wikipedia is one of the few great websites we have left.

No ads, tracking, or megacorps. Plenty of transparency.

There's a collective of thought police massaging a lot of the content to convey a certain narrative and it's all done under the veil of "transparent community-driven moderation".

I wouldn't be surprised if much of this effort is done by the megacorps you claim aren't involved.

Could you provide an example?

As the article of this post points out Larry Sanger is pretty vocal about how biased the content is and how changes to try and provide any semblance of a fair and balanced perspective are edited out of existence oftentimes by small numbers of people.