To those who believe that truth derives from authority, and not from debate backed with evidence, a website where the debate is visible and clear undermines its authority. But just because we don’t see that process at other publications doesn’t make them more reliable, it just means we can’t judge the quality of that process.

Wikipedia’s system has its flaws, but the ability to know that, to see those flaws and be aware of them, makes it more reliable. It also makes it very difficult for authoritarians to seize control of for their own ends, to shut down debate and impose consensus. That’s the real reason it is under attack, because those who wish to impose consensus have justify them selves publicly.