So you are aware of no examples of Monsanto modifying Wikipedia pages in dishonest and self-serving fashion? Recall that you said this:
I'm leery of Wikipedia. It can be edited by anyone and many organizations with deep pockets and agendas edit Wikipedia. Take for one example Monsanto
With respect to the Axios example, it's instructive to visit the Axios Wikipedia page, which currently includes
this section discussing the incident transparently.
And while the HuffPost article emphasizes the Axios consultant's success in prompting changes to the Axios article, I have a different take. As I read the article, I was impressed by the substantial safeguards built into the Wikipedia editorial structure. The many examples of the consultant's "success" didn't include anything more than subtle shades of interpretation. The description of the tortuous process required for such minor adjustments left me even more confident in Wikipedia's credibility.
As for me, I'm skeptical ("leery"?) of every source, but I would single out Wikipedia as one of the more credible sources of information in the world today.