Not really in practice no, the culture is very insular with a small number of admins and editors controlling the majority of articles (the ability to lock articles was made expressly for this purpose). That's before getting into some of the more notorious editor accounts like Philip_Cross, an account that never sleeps and consistently edits articles relating to western foreign policy targets, players in the military industrial complex, human rights industry and independent journalists critical of establishment narratives. Wikipedias founder is also a randian ideologue, who seems to offer his site up to the security state and has board members who served on the atlantic council. Finally wikipedia regularly breaks its own rules about transparency, using them to silence alternative media voices on the left, while never critiquing establisment media and often citing straight up propaganda as fact.

I have completely dropped them as sources for any political conflicts to the point where I can't even use them as background information.