> This is a problem for literally every source on Earth, and persists even among the most prestigious newspapers, books, etc.

That's true but practically meaningless. Some sources are dramatically more reliable and accurate than others. I can't completely trust my 4 year old nephew about physics, nor can I completely trust a leading physics text book, but that doesn't make those sources similarly reliable.

What we're discussing here is where Wikipedia falls on that continuum. I agree with the GP; there is so much deception by omission in WP that I don't trust it. For example, I was just looking at (American) football player Peyton Manning's article; it completely omitted a major sexual assault/harassment allegation, one about which there was a court settlement, book, major news coverage, etc.

The Biographies of Living Persons policy is rather strict, because of the potential for libel lawsuits. The Wikipedia foundation can barely afford to keep Wikipedia running as it is, let alone deal with hundreds of libel lawsuits.

I mean explicitly that Wikipedia does as least as good on lying by omission as the most reputable sources (NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, whatever).

Surely there must be some significant differences? It's hard to believe they are all the same. Claiming they are all the same is a strategy of propagandists (I'm not saying you are one; I'm saying it's a dubious approach). 'It's all the same' is the opposite of truth and accuracy, which require discernment; it the justification of liars (again, not the parent).

Anyway, the parent's claim isn't my experience, but now we're just one person on the Internet disagreeing with another.

I'm not saying their all the same. I'm saying Wikipedia is generally better (though of course far from perfect), without trying to make difficult-to-quantify claims about how much better.