I don't know it applies; but given the many times Wikipedias problems (esp politically biased gatekeepers) have been pointed out, followed by innocent-sounding requests for examples, followed by long back and forth time and energy sapping arguments with dismissals and refutations rather than thanks and acknowledgement of the problems, my instinctive reaction is suspicion towards people implying this is their first time hearing Wikipedia is extremely flawed wrt source material and editorial power.

This entire thread is filled with people saying Wikipedia is doomed due to whatever minor problem personally bothers them, in this case apparently coverage of recent events quoting news organizations.

Nobody is actually showing us why the problem they choose to highlight is significant enough to torpedo Wikipedia altogether (or even that is a more important problem than all the others mentioned).

Also, nobody here is starting a long argument to waste people’s time. They’re simply saying “your one paragraph proclamation is completely unconvincing”.