Wikipedia is a terrible example for the "zero censorship" crowd because stuff gets deleted or locked all the time. It's an example of how you can produce something useful despite a raging ideological battleground over all sorts of topics.
I didn't say "zero censorship." I don't even know what that means for an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia have a model for user generated content. It's much more resilient, open, unbiased and successful than social media. This isn't because they have some super nuanced, single-us distinction between moderation and censorship. They never really needed to split that hair.
They have a model for collaboratively editing an encyclopedia, including lots of details and special cases that deal with disagreement, discontent and ideological battlegrounds.
They also have a different organisational and power structure. Wikipedia doesn't exist to sell ads, or some other purpose above the creation of an encyclopedia. Users/editors have a lot of power. Things happen in the open.
Between those two, they've done much better than Alphabet/FB/Twitter/etc. Wikipedia is the ultimate prize for censorship, narrative wars, disinformation, campaigning, activism and such. Despite this, and despite far fewer resources it outperforms the commercial platforms. I don't think it's a coincidence.
I can point to particular pages that have failed in providing an accurate representation of the subject and are under the control of activists or interested groups.
I also get a bit tired of looking someone up and it has "so and so says this person is <insert bad thing>", claims that usually stack up about as well as that SPLC claim against Maajid Nawaz[1] did.
Given this, I find it hard to see how they're doing better than the other companies you mention.
