Are you of the opinion that people don’t already use internet resources, libraries, interviews and other educational avenues to inform themselves? Many here seem to be needing an education on how to use Wikipedia responsively, they seem to think that one is unable to engage with a wikipedia article critically. I just checked the article for BP, as one of the blogs linked here claimed that over 44% of BP’s wikipedia page was corporate speak. The ‘controversies’ section is one third to half the wikipedia page in length. As a jumping-off point for further study, it is perfectly adequate.

Of course no single site is perfect. Editors may always have ulterior motives. That is what the editing history is for. But with a federated wiki, the only thing you’ll get is multiple different versions that all present their oen little “truths” and at that point you can just go back and search the entire internet for blogs, just like the website you sent me is a blog.

Which also means that marxist.wiki/article/communism will be completely different from libertarian.wiki/article/communism. I think I will take Wikipedia’s attempt at impartiability over a “wikipedia” destined to just devolve into islands of “alternative facts”

You are underestimating, by a mile, the editorial effort that goes into fighting scam and spam, vandalism and lies. Wikipedia does have a support structure to do that, I doubt instance admins have the same kind of resources.