You'll have to be more specific to be able to claim this is actually about censorship and not notability and trustworthy sources.

Even printed national newspapers fall foul of the latter e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...

In part due to stuff like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20141207103758/https://www.thegu...

Probably because the new world seems to be worse at open collaboration. For example, they worry that accepting new maintainers (without careful screening which ensures, deliberately or not, they won’t change the organization), they will accept ideologues and Jia Tans. Wikipedia already has a serious problem with these and dedicates lots of resources to finding and stopping them, it’s why they’re hesitant to accept new contributions; but opening the organization to change would very likely make it worse, because new changes have new exploits.

vlian2088 is also correct that they’ve already been captured by a specific group which has shaped it to their biases. From that group’s perspective, even some good changes are bad. But opening it could introduce more hard-to-reverse bias.

Personally, I think we should try to figure out a new model for a new Wikipedia that thrives in today’s world.