memes

This argument doesn't really work because it's not like North Korea's own claims are taken as anything other than "the North Korean government alleges . . ." by Wikipedia, whereas SK government sources and so on can get by much more easily (despite their cottage industry of professional defectors making ludicrous claims). I'm obviously not saying claims from SK should be thrown out just because either, but simply that both should be interrogated.

But beyond that, there are many other things you can look at than just "he said, she said", because consensus on many facts exists and so does documented evidence. There is actually something to be said for pursuing epistemic rigor, it's not like everything is just a matter of faith, of dogmatically trusting one side and distrusting the other based on arbitrary whims.

There's basically one case on the website where I know of a real effort to interrogate these accusations in something like good faith, which is part of the article on Yeonmi Park, and honestly I think that's just because, as other defectors have commented, her bullshit rhetorically delegitimizes the rest of them and makes the whole thing look overtly unserious.

Yeah sure. Never the US, their occupation state, or their large range of various CIA-run/funded outlets. 2 of the citations are Radio Free which is again literally the CIA.

there's some with about 10 of them, but they're big articles so its not unexpected

Your phrasing suggests that individual articles have 10 [citations needed], which to me seems very high when I look at other long articles (higher than I would have guessed, honestly). I'm not asking for a statistical analysis on your part, but could you explain more how this isn't very high?

Of course, this isn't the original point you made, but it's also worth noting that by the intention of the meme, it seems like the main issue isn't the sheer volume of [citations needed] about North Korea on its own, but also what unsourced claims are used to say. For example, on the page for Kim Il-Sung, there are four [citations needed] and most of them are banal, but one of them is:

The North Korean government's practice of abducting foreign nationals, such as South Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Thais, and Romanians, is another practice of Kim Il Sung which persists to the present day. [citation needed]

Which is a hell of a thing to say without a source. I don't even understand why it lacks one since you can find a rag or a thinktank making almost any accusation that you want about North Korea.

The [citations needed] in the main North Korea page are also about the pre-communist history, so I'd say you could also have made a much stronger claim about that particular article.

But speaking just for myself now, I think the main issue in terms of the representation of North Korea on Wikipedia isn't the number of claims that openly lack a source, but claims that for one reason or another are allowed to be presented as simple fact that are either slanted or substanceless.