Bravo! That ‘splains a lot. Why a crowdsourced encyclopedia can’t be compatible with the common knowledge and culture. In fact it had to be changed to be a closed club editing anything controversial. Actually wikipedia now seems to be just another government cyber influence project.
Most of Wikipedia is quite good, or even excellent. Science, technology, geography, locations, history (up to a point), militaria, languages, even sociology.
It is in nearly every way far more useful than any printed encyclopedia ever. It does not approach the literary quality of the old Britannica, but that is a very tall order.
Where Wiki fails is, almost always, when it intersects with current politics. Even controversial topics like the Spanish Civil War are fairly even handed, and cite all sides.
Non-English/American subjects are generally much better handled in their own sections of Wiki. French, German, Spanish, etc. But that is to be expected.
As I said upthread, the vast bulk of Wiki is not influenced by modern politics.
My case in point - the perennially controversial Spanish Civil War is very decently cited, including both “sides”, such as they still matter. It cites Thomas and Beevor, both Preston an Payne, and even (the rightist controversialist) Pio Moa. Among many, many others. If you want a place to start on this subject, the Wiki is excellent.