An “occasional artefact of factors [like] bias, circular reasoning, gatekeeping, etc” is not even close to anything which anyone could reasonably call a “Ministry of Truth”, and it is certainly not what I was referring to.
If that artefact presents as keeping certain subjects or articles within the bias of the dominant group, it is pretty much controlling "truth" in that way. But, yes, I don't think Wikipedia has a shadowy board of Cigarette Smoking Men or anything.
But there are other entities that seem to do a reasonably good job of being impartial (e.g. BBC), I just don't buy the idea that Wikipedia is very special (or especially effective) in regard to neutrality.
But there are other entities that seem to do a reasonably good job of being impartial (e.g. BBC), I just don't buy the idea that Wikipedia is very special (or especially effective) in regard to neutrality.