Re: Why?
"it has displaced other sources to become a near-monopoly on "factual" information online."
How is it anything close to monopoly? It is an easy (and thus popular) starting point, which is often (but not always) well referenced. Other sources are readily available for those who need more or different. E.g. Britannica's still around and online and free - so why don't more people use it in preference to Wikipedia?
Fwiw I'm the AC who posted the link to read about Encarta in Britannica. Pointing to Wikipedia to read about Encarta was another possibility but seemed a bit self-referential, See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-referential_humor.
"To call it a public service is the epitome of hypocrisy."
See above.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
