The criticism is that writing an authoritative book or peer reviewed article is demonstrably insufficient in the face of a large body of incorrect secondary mat

The criticism is that writing an authoritative book or peer reviewed article is demonstrably insufficient in the face of a large body of incorrect secondary material and active editorial control. I think it uncontroversial to claim Wikipedia is a knowledge base with a bias toward stability of mature articles over correctness. It's a tradeoff. I believe your argument is that it is the right tradeoff. That may be true, but that opinion fails to be properly cited, and does not have a large body of secondary sources backing it up. :-)