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.