You seriously think that that particular article has been "corrupted"? Have you ever actually looked at any articles there, read the sources, checked that they weren't bogus?

They have some 16 million articles, just in English alone -- you've evaluated all of them? No doubt there's some rot there -- mostly on anything to do with gender from what I've seen -- but still a great deal of value that you and too many others seem rather too quick to dismiss. Bit of an oldish article -- 2011 -- by Natalie Wolchover at Live Science that made the argument that it was, then at least, as good as Britannica, the gold standard:

livescience.com/32950-h…

As for where they've gone off the rails, see my article on Wikipedia's Lysenkoism:

humanuseofhumanbeings.s…