This is surely true and can be a danger in many cases. Still, Wikipedia is curated by humans and in most cases I would argue that articles improve over time, er

This is surely true and can be a danger in many cases. Still, Wikipedia is curated by humans and in most cases I would argue that articles improve over time, errors get corrected etc. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia is a good primary source, I still think it is very suitable as a point of entry if you want to cross-check information from other sources. A user-editable encyclopedia is not perfect, but it is not comparable to automatically generated text that has no regard for correctness, that only tries to fit its training data and prompt. For example, I wouldn't trust GPT when asking for the height of some building in my city. I would consider it likely though that it confidently gives ke a wrong number. Without all the RLHF training to refuse "best guess" answers, situation would be even more bleak.