Are you sure? Why? Because they told you it is? Because you donated? Because you see the people that make edits and articles?
What if it a community labor site? How would you as an outsider be able to tell the difference?
It's also possible I misunderstood and was only seeing the removed edits because of HTTP caching, but I did know about that at the time...
Or maybe you were so annoying you'd got yourself added to the automated filter list? I guess that's unlikely for a random twerp but who knows.
Are you trying to make the point that it is impossible to deceive you that Wikipedia could be ideologically and politically manipulated?
You’ve made an excellent point for me. Is entirely likely, that at Wikipedia is some level deceiving its users and we can’t know.
In this case, you may not talk someone out of believing in homeopathy, particularly if they've invested a lot of time or money in it. You may have better luck with people who are first hearing about homeopathy, visiting the article, and seeing that it's junk.
I've seen this play out in other subjects, like global warming (there's not a real "both sides"; climate scientists nearly universally believe in it), evolution (almost no biologists believe in Creationism), chiropractic (there's no plausible mechanism of action; studies fail to show that it works for anything beyond some back pain), the "electric universe" (cosmologists universally think it's dumb), and many others. Diehards are gonna diehard. People on the fence can benefit from a solid dose of reality.