looks like interviewer asks question not in a good faith

There's context. Hank Green talked about it in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zi0ogvPfCA, but in short, paraphrasing, and adding my own thoughts:

Jimmy Wales has been poked at with the question of whether he should call himself a founder or specifically co-founder for a long time, by right-wingers who think Wikipedia is too woke, and want to irritate and discredit him as much as possible, and instead raise up his co-founder Larry Sanger. Sanger has right-wing views and a habit of accusing any article as biased that doesn't praise Trump and fundamentalist Christian values, and takes these as proof that Wikipedia has a left lean.

The interview Wales walked out of was for his book tour. I imagine it's the umpteenth interview that week with the same question asked for the same transparently bad-faith reasons, trying to bend the interview away from his book and into right-wing conspiracy theory land.

Wikipedia is literally a spin-off of a porn company.

From that point on, where it came from or who founded it is not so important. The question is how it acts today.

It is a highly-political organization supporting lot of “progressive” ideas, California-style. So if you like reading politically biased media it may be for you.

If you are seeking for a global view you better ask different LLMs for arguments and counter-arguments on a subject.

EDIT: a couple downvotes denying the influence of specific “Wikipedia ideology” and politics.

Take a chance to edit articles and you will see how tedious it is.

There is also a lot of legal censorship. Celebrities putting pressure on removing info, or lobbies, or say things that are illegal or very frowned upon (for example questioning homosexuality, or the impact of certain wars).

Sometime it is legality, ideology, politics, funding, pressure, etc.

This is why you need to use different sources.