For example, the page talking about blogs is for 20% about "Legal and social consequences" including "personal safety" [1]. And again, I think that's fine. Nothing wrong with discussing that. But I don't see any arguments why blogging is great such as it being useful for marketing, that you possibly have platform independence, and generally lots of freedom to write what you want to express.

Put differently, here on Hacker News we have a lot of links pointing to blogs and I think generally they are great. However, if I would not know about blogs and read the blog Wikipedia page then I could conclude that blog's are very dangerous, which they shouldn't be.

And just to be sure. I'm not saying Wikipedia is bad and I'm not sure whether it's a good idea that Elon takes control of it. I think Wikipedia in the current form is great. I'm just saying maybe there is indeed a bias in the source data, and maybe that ends up in the models.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog