Part of the difficulty in pointing specifically to how and when Wikipedia was politically captured is that this sort of ideological takeover happens in a pretty abstract and diffuse way without much of a paper trail, which is part of what makes it so hard to defend against.
A good recent example I encountered was the Olympics Boxing scandal around Imane Khelif where having an SRY gene was a very salient point that was reported on and later confirmed, but there was a huge effort to conceal that info from the page, and then later downplay it heavily.
That said, I still think Wikipedia is a pretty substantial net good for providing information.
Part of the difficulty in pointing specifically to how and when Wikipedia was politically captured is that this sort of ideological takeover happens in a pretty abstract and diffuse way without much of a paper trail, which is part of what makes it so hard to defend against.
Tracing Woodgrains documents some interesting cases like a major admin/​user that consistently edits in bad faith and generally gets away with it or how figures like Mao get treated rather differently from other big dictators.
A good recent example I encountered was the Olympics Boxing scandal around Imane Khelif where having an SRY gene was a very salient point that was reported on and later confirmed, but there was a huge effort to conceal that info from the page, and then later downplay it heavily.
That said, I still think Wikipedia is a pretty substantial net good for providing information.