> Haven't we hit that point already with bad faith (and potentially government-run) coordinated editing […] campaigns,

Yes, this is a real phenomenon. See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Wikipedia%E2%80%93...: the examples from 2006 are funny, and the article's subject matter just gets sadder and sadder as the chronology goes on.

> and voting campaigns

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

> as both Wales and Sanger have been pointing out

{{fv}}. Neither of those essays make this point. The closest either gets is Sanger's first thesis, which misunderstands the "support / oppose" mechanism. Ironically, his ninth thesis says to introduce voting, which would create the "voting campaign" vulnerability!

These are both really bad takes, which I struggle to believe are made in good faith, and I'm glad Wikipedians are mostly ignoring them. (I have not read the third link you provided, because Substack.)