The point that is (probably) wrong is "at request". The remaining part however is true. You can see it in the edits and discussions. In Germany the Wikipedia has a bunch of people with almost universal power in the Wikipedia - inofficially called "Politburo" (by Wikipedians that had the pleasure of editing one of their entries). These are (to our knowledge at least) not directly controlled by gov, but they however do what is in their interest.

Wikipedia is being corrupted and you should be aware of it. Having a (single) source of truth* has to end like this.

edit: *: More precisely institutions and people treating it like a single source of truth.

Wikipedia locks edits at the most mundane of topics to avoid/end edit wars. HN also has anti-flamewar features for similar reasons - no conspiracy theory needed. "Recession" seems like ripe target for edit wars by political activists due to topicality (and I'm guessing "King Charles" too)

Having a (single) source of truth* has to end like this.

Why?

Among the reasons is that it comes with great power and authority and therefore attracts the wrong people. It is really effective to slander people for example. Another reason is that an established source of truth is inflexible and hard to change from the outside even if it is wrong, because it is used as reference for the truth (circular logic).

Using Wikipedia as an example: Everyone can edit Wikipedia, however if your edit survives is determined by a hierarchical structure that involves people (with an opinion). It doesn't need a big conspiracy, but only a few people that select which people may act on their behalf. A concrete example would be the Wikipedian Feliks in German Wikipedia who is by now convicted of defamation (via Wikipedia) and still remains part of the "Politburo" of Wikipedia altho obviously violating the official ethos.

In regards to changing Wikipedia, try removing opinions (or just circular citation) from an entry of Feliks or Kopilot (or anyone of the Politburo) and look what happens. Most likely your account is gone, but if you're lucky your edit is just reverted.

Much of it is how Wikipedia is being treated. It is/was an excellent reference book for quickly looking up information about a topic - well, just like an encyclopedia, however it's bad as a source of truth.

What's a good source of truth?

Does the topic matter? Is it binary? Why is it a good or bad source of truth, not some level of trust?

Nitpicks

You talk about circular references, I assume you mean someone cites wikipeida which then cites...something else? Either way Wikipeidia isn't a primary source and if someone uses it as one they are wrong and that's the fault of the person.

How would someone defame someone on Wikipedia without providing false sources or no source at all. If they did it could be discovered and changed. This could happen on social media, news organizations, books, or in person. What source of information is immune to this ? (If none are then I don't believe it's a valid criticism)

You say that people who want to corrupt will be attracted to it. Aren't there protections against that? Does it happen often? Is it so frequent that you have zero trust or you think it's "bad source of truth"

> What's a good source of truth?

In my opinion none.

> You say that people who want to corrupt will be attracted to it. Aren't there protections against that? Does it happen often? Is it so frequent that you have zero trust or you think it's "bad source of truth"

Why are people so obsessed with a source of truth? We never had that and we still don't disregard how much we pretend that we have or wish we had one. It's not the first time in history we pretended that one exists either, but it usually ends bad.