Yep it is rather sad that things always boil down to who influences it (even Google uses man-made algorithms). These things start out well with the best of intentions until we discover subconscious biases, which we try fix by bringing more humans in, then the fights start, then some split off and start another site.
I've looked at some of the other sites and also don't think they've got it perfect. Scholarpedia sounds like a good idea where you limit the approvers to elected scholars, but new articles must have a sponsor which means it will limit growth. I looked specifically at Everipedia but was a bit dismayed at the lack of quality by fans creating articles about eg. Jeff Bezos, and then me knowing nothing about the content can vote in or out. It does have some checks like if you vote against the majority, but still shows me you could conspire to fake it. Jeff has two profiles now on Everipedia, one which gives his date on conception as his birth date (they are 9 months apart). Voting by pure numbers where the individuals are rewarded points for voting but know little about the topic, is not to me the best way to do it either. I just realised too that the entry I had edited was a second duplicate, and it actually spelt Jeff's surname incorrectly!
The fact remains Wikipedia is one of the most widely quoted and visited sources for this type of information, and whilst we know it is not perfect, I'm still wondering what is the better way to do it now? There must be a better way, but what would the crux of the difference be to get it right? We can see what is wrong but I have not yet seen a conclusive solution.
See Mapping Wikipedia
An unprecedented data set shows where the encyclopedia’s editors are, where they aren’t, and why.