Wikipedia is a easy target but it's definitely a mile better than a lot of the trash out there.
There isn't one topic or person that doesn't have a share of dirty laundry and with the media going full clickbait nowadays one can source it well by wp standards.
A serious discussion should judge if the laundry is worthy of inclusion but what you get is power users flexing their muscles. They are judge jury and executioner. Non of the edit guidelines apply but if they did get the slightest consideration, the same faceless usernames have authority over those too!
That you have a nobel prize for the subject doesn't mean you get to make perfectly valid citations without permission.
The really stupid part is that people love to pretend it isn't so in stead of seeing and indeed enjoying the facinating dynamics of human interaction with such huge transparency.
It has all agendas represented for everyone to see!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
and here is what citizen editors wanted to write:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
And here is the guideline that says you cant do a POV fork:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking
I have no opinion on the topic.
FWIW, I also don't see any section about whether or not bigfoot karate kicked the towers down either.
At the same time does any other top-10 site have a non-profit motive?
I think scaling donations is difficult. Wikipedia makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year, but its closest competitor, Google, makes hundreds of billions of dollars. But to the average person, a hundred million dollars is a hell lot of money. So people get cynical.
Also it's possible that donation models just don't work well. Dwarf Fortress is one data point. It was decent money at $15k per month, then people dropped 7 million dollars on the Steam release on the first month.