Wikipedia occasionally has errors, which are usually minor. The LLMs I've tried occasionally get things right, but mostly emit limitless streams of plausible-sounding lies. Your comment paints them as much more similar than they are.
In my experience, it's really common for wikipedia to have errors, but it's true that they tend to be minor. And yes, LLMs mostly just produce crazy gibberish. They're clearly worse than wikipedia. But I don't think wikipedia is meeting a standard it should be proud of.
