I feel like there's a silent dictatorship on Wikipedia with some editors. I also don't take it seriously on some subjects and roll my eyes when people reference it.

Jason Scott (director of the internet archive) lays down some of the fundamental problems with wikipedia pretty well in this talk, way back from 2006:
https://vimeo.com/10741713

With respect to current political topics, wikipedia articles are outright dictated by the US State Department:
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-loving-founder-and-wikimedia-foundations-regime-change-operative-ceo/

It's not all that different when it comes to historical topics, I might add.

The main use of that website is that of a link aggregator - on 'non-sensitive' topics, it can be a good source of links to original articles, and that's about it.

Also, fuck the cult of Ayn Rand, fuck her and her pseudo-philosophy, and fuck libertarian pseudo-skepticism. lol

My understanding is that it, while a nice read, is still essentially largely a self-published, one man blog.

I expected that answer and sadly I do not have much to counter it, especially since the other occasional contributors use nomme de plumes.

I might circle back to argue it being a good situational source, with Liam a testified expert in Linux gaming.

But hey, at least you're a "nice read".