Washington Post recently admitted the sensational Trump Georgia call story was false. The entire story was based on hearsay from Jordan Fuchs and refuted by the recording of the call. The Post was forced to retract. Alone, presenting hearsay and rumors as fact is bad enough, but worse in the context where the sensational quotes were "independently confirmed" by several other "trusted" media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, etc.
In fact, on a locked Wikipedia page on this topic, we see that Wikipedia continues to spread this false information more than a week after the retraction,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
I won't read a locked wikipedia page, not just because the page itself is locked and editorialized, but because the supporting links are going to be equally poor quality sources from their echo chamber. These biased false stories are "locked" in, pretty much permanently. Editors rush to add them, and conveniently forget they are still referenced when the story turns out to be untrue. No one else with an interest in seeing them removed can do so because the page is locked. Wikipedia therefore, persists false stories under the lock indefinitely.
The Washington Post publishes false rumors about the POTUS as confirmed facts. I have little hope that their coverage will be honest and thorough for someone much less significant like James O'Keefe.
The lock is the first thing I check before reading anything on wikipedia. If it is locked, I close the page, because the page is invariably full of wild conspiracy theories from tabloid quality sources.