It is my opinion that a project that seeks to decentralize and decouple from big tech and the deep state of influence peddling by promoting technologies that support truth, freedom, privacy, civil and human rights, would not commit the cardinal sin of making a known to be non-authoritative resource, authoritative in “deed”. Why the persistent effort to promote Wikipedia, it’s like promoting the National Inquirer as being a good source of daily news. I applaud the Profile with optional reference sources, but the weightedness Wikipedia in results is like spreading a bad information virus. The argument I’m likely to hear is the wikipedia is community driven and fact checked. Both posits are false. Community does not mean unbiased and fact checked is only as good as those who wrote the facts (proven in many cases to be only have a fact)