No argument there. I view one's own Wikipedia bio page (if one has one) as a golden opportunity for everything from libel to identity theft. The price of a public bio is constant vigilance.
I'm nowhere near important or notorious enough to warrant a bio page.
OTOH, I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for 20 years. I was more active 2005-2010 than in the last 15 -- I authored a couple pages, edited a couple others. I have a user page if anyone cares to look it up. (That's not a regular Wiki page, it's in the subsection of Wikipedia users. I check it from time to time; nobody including me has touched it in a decade, in fact I should update it, LOL.)
Despite the ubiquitous liberal bias on Wikipedia, I have found it possible to argue with those who disliked something I put on a page; that's what the "Talk" pages are for. Sometimes I prevailed, other times not. Such is life in the fast lane. I suppose if one considered one's own bio page a hopeless battle, one could mark it for deletion. Wikipedia is not the only database game in town, although it's arguably one of the most widely known.
As time goes on, I trust it less and less on many subjects. I guess it’s still ok for ‘settled’ science (if such actually exists) and for a lot of history; but it’s useless for anything the least controversial, including politics and very recent history.
I’m especially interested in some things that might be considered ‘fringe’ science but which I believe have value regardless; and the ‘guerillas’ have completely destroyed Wiki for most of that. They are hell-bent on shutting down any speculative thought in those areas. (Rupert Sheldrake and bernard Haisch are cases in point.)
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-jul-24-oe-haisch24-story.html