Who or what really runs Wikipedia?

 On 'The Economist Explains' was the question and answer offered as to who really runs Wikipedia'. In passing I commented:

Though there MAY be personal executive decisions made, transparently or otherwise, and consciously or otherwise, the fact that comes to (my) mind is that the cultural presumptions of the 'age' are what set the values and goals within which and to which all else conforms.

Of course these are not set in stone and there is always a multiplicity of values and therefore purposes.

The ability to create a personal lens through which reality itself is apprehended, with its own set of meanings overlaid on and contra to the Meaning that Reality Is, constitutes a foundation of the human consciousness - not unlike the inheritance (from a yet living father) of the Prodigal Son.

It seems to me that where a loveless and private self serving intent is DENIED the right to impose itself upon the mind at large, the 'picture is brought into a truer focus with less distortion or filtering.

Yet where a voice is denied hearing, it is reinforced in its own sense of being denied expression. Like the fairy not invited to the party, it will, sooner or later spoil the party.
Finding ways to include expressions without propagandising for or against them is the way of relinquishing the investment in the personal sense and opening to a shared sense of value.
This is not available to the mentality that wants to be right in contradistinction to the wrong of another; who NEEDS the 'enemy' in order to vindicate their own personal identity-assertions.

Controlling reality is of course a joke. Yet controlling the interpretation and access to reality is taken as a very very serious matter - within our own mind and within the larger cultural aggregations of personal interests of such mentality.

Whatever else we my seem to be doing, we are learning about our own mind - or indeed have so 'personalized' or rationalized the issues that we are simply blindly reactive within our own mind-set. (The set in which we have temporarily identified ourselves as validated).

The reactive mind is an aspect of our thinking which tends to usurp a true perspective, though it does promote an ever evolving multiplicity of a defence/offence mechanism. Being willing to not use this mentality allows all sides or voices in any issue to be included at their essence - if not in the forms of its current expression.

That information can be used as a weapon of coercion and control is true - but that truth can be itself illuminated.

The ownership and survival of that which inspires and embodies the communication, is usually what compromises its integrity, because any threat to its existence is felt to be justifiably blocked or opposed - and here will be the area where truth is made the first casualty to the 'managed' war of what then comes after.

Although Jesus (mythically or otherwise), provided a cultural basis for the age in terms of challenging the power of the mind-in-fear, he would not have been able to contribute to Wikipedia excepting on already agreed definitions. He spoke out of an authority that is not citable or referencing to external 'authorities'- but from a directness of observation that can be verified by any who hear in a willingness to observe likewise.
However, that doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to point to it for background reference.
The process of discernment is different from scepticism in that it pauses from reaction whilst listening within the heart - absent of its own (reactive) thinking. Whereas scepticism does not yield in trust to being itself but defends the point of view that IT has accepted as it own - as a result of thinking - which of course includes some measure of discernment - but only where it is felt less threatening to its own existence.

Misinformation or even unrelated or inappropriate information, is like noise that blocks the signal. Consciously aligned purpose is the nature of the sharing of the signal. It is life-affirming to withdraw support from that which undermines integrity of the unifying purpose itself.

Communication itself is more than information, for its flow or sharing expresses and embodies a willingness to share. This itself is a higher purpose and has its own communication - or rather communion or connection and sharing in a level of Meaning that cannot itself be rationalised into bits of information. (without simply being substituted for by 'bits of information').