Wikipedia's entries can be vetted since its public access.

It's not the wiki itself that is to be used for sourcing information? It's the required citations. If the article makes a claim but has no citations, discard it.

Articles that do have citations, check out the sources themselves.

People grossly misunderstand what Wikipedia actually is. It's a crowd funded encyclopedia that summarises the material it has entries on. The actual 'facts' are in the citations which are crowd sourced.

It's very easy to discern which articles have been tampered or are not vetted.

It's also easy as hell to lie with ink & paper as well. Just look at Zechariah Sitchin's "Chariots of the Gods" book which makes absurd mistakes and purposely tries to misinform the reader as to the true scientific facts. The dude even pretends to know 'Sumerian Cuneiform' and translates it, when he clearly doesn't and is way the hell off in his translations. He can grift in thr 1970s and you can grift with an internet blog in 2020.

A lie is a lie, be it on the internet or in a book. Knowledge is more accurately retained by the use of peer review process. Wiki allows that - you just have to be willing to participate.