The reason for doing it that way is that the bar to "facts" entering the mainstream is significantly higher (i.e. peer review, editorial review, etc.) as oppose

The reason for doing it that way is that the bar to "facts" entering the mainstream is significantly higher (i.e. peer review, editorial review, etc.) as opposed to "what some WP editor let through". This is important because people do cite Wikipedia and there is more than one instance of a "fact" appearing in an article and later being cited to a secondary source that cites... you guessed it Wikipedia. :) The important step that publishing material adds is peer review. An editor might have excellent credentials but other editors are not equipped to peer review their material. FWIW I don't agree it is an unnecessary repetition of work; the published material is likely to be much more than a summary, with reasoning, and so is adding significantly to the body of work on the topic - which WP can then summarise :)