You have tried to make this argument several times. Do you actually think that a committee of editors carefully reviews every single change made to Wikipedia? That is not the case.
yes, I think that editors on most pages act like little lords and ladies over what they view as their property and instantly revert anything from outsiders that doesn't fit with their conception or isn't a clear improvement. (This has been my experience). sorry, that was my experience.
You're presenting a personal pov that's grossly hyperbolic even in its subjectivity and does not reflect reality. With the exception of a hand-full of highly sensible topics that are prone to brigading, such as political issues, most articles barely receive any edit and are far from being monitored. Articles that are particularly vulnerable are articles on geography-related topics from nations that don't have a strong wikipedia presence.
I mean, it's not that hyperbolic. Wikipedia is a highly toxic place for many people. Even the foundation appreciates this.