User ChaseKiwi tends to be only active for a restricted range of topics, as a dilettante. He (you are allowed to use that pronoun) is volunteering his time to try to help the community. Historically there has been too much diversity of input on some topics in Wikipedia, for it to be fully trusted by professionals in the respective fields. Indeed unless gross or technical error ChaseKiwi will tend to stay away from areas where ChaseKiwi's professional expertise as a subject-matter expert is associated with remuneration to avoid perception of conflict of interest. Allowing others easier access to alternative views that may appear to ChaseKiwi to be inconsistent with evidence, especially if not referenced to independent sources can help identify possible misconceptions or cultural issues in the rich diversity of perception, hidden information and lack of analytic ability that professionals have to manage. Please be kind to those who do not accept Hans Küng's view that in paradigm shifts the new one is always better, not just different. Some contributions have withstood the test of time and as plenty of articles could do with improvement input continues from this user who agrees with the English wikipedia policies. The hope is that the inability of individuals and human subcultures to learn from others unless a threshold is crossed, will sometimes be mitigated by information being available in more digestible form. There has been a tendency of the site to improve, with not unexpected spectacular failures when information is shaded by those with an agenda or AI tools are used inappropriately. There remains the risk that the site is weakened by an assumption that those that do the most, are the most to be trusted as an editor, when expertise on a topic and its reliable sources that help neutrality without straying into original research can be somewhat time consuming to evolve and involve other activities than wiki editing.

If like ChaseKiwi you have had some interest in technical health topics and policy (i.e. more historic experience in evaluating secondary and primary sources than many) you may be aware that there are/were attempts at wiki's with editorial control restricted to professionals which often run into the classic problems of long term sustainability but certainly offered for a while sometimes higher quality articles than Wikipedia.

• Medpedia - mainly plain US english and not that technical - recommended as a first stop by American public which did not come so it died

• GANFYD Open access medical resource but technical with British english bias - it took much longer to die but in the end the server died and too much hassle to recover as a functioning wiki (the link however reaches a frozen in time - before the COVID-19 pandemic - selection of articles that it seems have tickled the selectors fancy as the first rescued often comment on issues political decision makers should have addressed before the pandemic although its never too late.)
• Ask Dr. Wiki Open access medical resource - died

• PubDrug Open access drug resource - removed

• [/ EBM Librarian] Open access EBM rhttp://ebmlibrarian.wetpaint.comesource -dead

• Wikikidney.org Open access Renal disease resource

• [http://wiki.iop.kcl.ac.uk/default.aspx/Neurodegeneration/Neurodegeneration%20Research%20Wiki.html MRC

Neurodegeneration Research Wiki] Open access neurodegerative disease resource