Right. So an article on this other system can get through all that review with errors or at least with interpretations that are in dispute and unlike on Wikipedia those issues can't be fixed. Well they can be fixed but only after another shit storm of review and if those reviewers agrees etc etc. Wikis are excellent ways to document and organize knowledge in a relatively casual and cheap manner. Stanford setup a system that is slow, potentially still open to bias, definitely still open to mistakes, and requires much more resources. Comparing the two systems is like comparing a scooter to a tank.