Have you used Wikipedia?

It was one of the first culture war battlegrounds... And it's been owned for a while now.

Looking at these gross payments (and executive migration to think tanks), are you really pretending things aren't political?

I’m going to be honest I’ve gone to some of the more controversial articles they don’t seem far off from reality a lot of the time. They usually have citations of both pro and anti arguments on both sides of any debate. Is there something I’m missing?

Yes, the Talk and History pages on those articles.

People can play fact Monopoly behind the scenes as much as they want -- there's a reason Talk isn't displayed without clicking on it.

The CEO of the nonprofit behind Wikipedia has zero editorial control over the site. Decisions are made by consensus among the editors who show up, which can be anyone. In fact, the executives probably have less editorial control than you and I do individually, precisely because it's a serious taboo in Wikipedia for staff members to try and influence editorial decisions.

Honestly you sound like a conspiracy theorist who doesn't really understand how Wikipedia works.

Sure there is a lot of spam but there is also a lot of political pressure to influence politically controversial articles. This rather old video was an eye opener for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY

This kind of campaign is overblown.

They mention the topic of the Gaza flotilla raid in the video. If you read the actual article on this topic, it's pretty balanced, and mentions in the introduction that Israel was condemned by the UN Human Rights Council and their use of force was called excessive and unreasonable. Hardly a Zionist propaganda piece.