Yup. Ever since then, Gregory Kohs has been on a scarily obsessive mission to not just criticize Wikipedia, but harass individual Wikipedians. He's been banned from almost all the Wikipedia projects, and in the days when Yahoo Answers was a thing, he got banned from there for using it as a way to SEO-associate hateful words with various Wikipedians and Wikimedia staff. As far as I can tell he still devotes many hours a week to his anti-Wikipedia mission -- pretty much every article anyone writes about Wikipedia, he jumps into the comment threads with ludicrously tendential assertions and distortions, often with multiple sockpuppets.

People don't like to talk about him because it feeds the troll, but after five years of solid effort the guy is now scoring mainstream press hits.

Wikipedia's (lack of) resistance to hoaxes is an issue for concern, and the WMF needs criticism, but Kohs is deranged.

What about paying for high-quality, fact-checked journalism and writing on wikipedia? Seems like that could have a positive impact. ?

I think paying for writing would be a giant mistake. There's a big psychological difference between working for intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards; the former gets you much better work. There's also a huge problem with paying some people and not others; my guess is a lot of volunteers would quit immediately if other people were getting paid for similar work.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm not quite clear on where the Wikipedia donation money goes though. But if they have a significant amount left over, they could use it on something worthwhile like fact checking.