This is an interesting perspective on why Wikipedia can be as reliable as it is, but I don’t think it being untrusted by The Powers That Be is why we don’t see more disinformation attacks or propaganda using it as a medium, since sources like Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook posts are commonly used for such attacks, and it wouldn’t surprise me if blogs were too. We also see few such attacks on some sources which The Powers That Be do trust, notably journal articles (though such attacks don’t never happen).
Another theory may be that Wikipedia is labeled unreliable because it is not controlled by The Powers That Be, similar to how there was a reputation attack on Substack not that long ago, not because there are morally corrupt people blogging on the platform, but because it explicitly rejects the control of The Powers That Be. The contra-positive of if you can’t beat them, join them.
We also see few such attacks on some sources which The Powers That Be do trust, notably journal articles (though such attacks don’t never happen).
I think we see plenty examples where corportation hire experts to write papers that come to conclusions that are in their interest.
When it comes to the link it’s worth noting that the only reason the papers in those cases where detected as being fake was because they did stupid mistakes like copying images. Given that’s where the threshold lies, more sophisticated misconduct is likely to often say undetected. All the while replication rates are low.