Happy to hear, it's definitely not my skillset. Like if a paper is significant I'll try to get what I can out of them, but like, I usually get more out of them if I send them to my wife. I wouldn't call myself particularly trained.
Just saying, Wikipedia is highly vulnerable to selective and misleading editing. The sources don't always say what the articles say they say, and the articles don't always represent the overall research accurately.
I wouldn't describe it as highly vulnerable, because each artucle has a #ChangeLog , a #TalkPage and the talk page also has a change long.
There are lots of things to criticize Wikipedia about, but I think you are mostly listing misconceptions, or "don't always" is doing some heavy lifting.
There is a strong bias on Wikipedia to delete articles, and #revert changes. I call myself an #InclusionistWikipedian becausen I think that bias is already too strong. Many people's first changes are reverted, and that scares a lot of contributors away.