Wikipedia editor here; there’s some nuance. This article is listed as a Good Article, meaning it’s been reviewed by another (almost certainly) experienced editor for verifiability, prose and style, coverage, neutrality, stability, etc. This was attained in 2013, and especially for such a prominent article, slipping below those standards is a recipe to get GA status revoked. Presumably this note is summarizing a large portion of coverage by Wikipedia and thus a variety of sources. You want to read and cite all of the sources rather than Wikipedia in something like a research paper, but for just a community note, there’s really nothing wrong with this.
Wikipedia editor here; there’s some nuance. This article is listed as a Good Article, meaning it’s been reviewed by another (almost certainly) experienced editor for verifiability, prose and style, coverage, neutrality, stability, etc. This was attained in 2013, and especially for such a prominent article, slipping below those standards is a recipe to get GA status revoked. Presumably this note is summarizing a large portion of coverage by Wikipedia and thus a variety of sources. You want to read and cite all of the sources rather than Wikipedia in something like a research paper, but for just a community note, there’s really nothing wrong with this.