I'm not really a power user but I have been editing on and off for well over a decade, so perhaps I'm part of the insider group you think is too powerful. That said, I don't share the perception that these problems are as bad or widespread as you say. There are certain topics, such as Middle East politics, where there's such a critical mass of people who are just there to push an agenda that to maintain order there need to be actual admin-imposed restrictions. And there are some topics where individuals or small groups keep the article's tone and content under tight control, but that's usually because the topic is obscure enough that few people are interested enough to force changes through. Popular or politically charged topics have so many people contributing that it's virtually impossible to create a Reddit-style echo chamber, more often the problem is articles that consist of a jumble of contradictory propaganda. I think overall Wikipedia works well: even on today's highly politicized topics like COVID-19 vaccines and Ukraine/Russia, on Wikipedia you can read about the dissenting views, not free from refutation but considerably more free from the blanket statements, false equivalences, and even self-censorship that the news media treats these topics with.
Of course, Wikipedia isn't apolitical: since the beginning it's been full of people who consider themselves critical thinkers and skeptics interested in spreading the truth as science tells it, which is itself an ideology that is necessarily opposed to political or religious ideologies which assert some truth that can't be refuted or proven by evidence, and of course to conspiracy theorists who openly detest science and expertise. So yes, people and organizations who make enemies of Wikipedia's ideology won't get nice or even 100% fair treatment in Wikipedia articles. Anyone who sees this as some new development due to recent political currents wasn't paying attention during the 2000s. If you see it as a problem, you're free to follow in the footsteps of widely mocked sites like RationalWiki or Conservapedia and create a wiki that favors your ideology instead. I think it's telling that even people who lean more left or right wing still rely on Wikipedia rather than those places.
Of course, Wikipedia isn't apolitical: since the beginning it's been full of people who consider themselves critical thinkers and skeptics interested in spreading the truth as science tells it, which is itself an ideology that is necessarily opposed to political or religious ideologies which assert some truth that can't be refuted or proven by evidence, and of course to conspiracy theorists who openly detest science and expertise. So yes, people and organizations who make enemies of Wikipedia's ideology won't get nice or even 100% fair treatment in Wikipedia articles. Anyone who sees this as some new development due to recent political currents wasn't paying attention during the 2000s. If you see it as a problem, you're free to follow in the footsteps of widely mocked sites like RationalWiki or Conservapedia and create a wiki that favors your ideology instead. I think it's telling that even people who lean more left or right wing still rely on Wikipedia rather than those places.