On Facebook, articles that trend are those who received the most votes, shared by friends or family, or selected by by algorithms based on prior interests. Although truth/accuracy is said to be a goal, it's a "social network", not a "truth network" and is not a recognized purveyor of factual data.

On Wikipedia, reality is usually whatever some erstwhile editor can scrounge up that backs up their preferred narrative. As journalists overwhelmingly self-identity as liberal/progressive, it's trivial for a single, anonymous editor to shop around for MSM articles that back up the narrative. That, combined with WikiMedia actually hosting & funding "edit-thons" for progressive activist groups, it is no wonder why Wikipedia is viewed by many as having a liberal bent. Yet, it DOES hold itself as a trustworthy purveyor of factual information.

One of those seems a lot more democratic than the other, but it's the more democratic option that's usually used as the negative example.