That’s not what “peer review” means. And what you list as advantages, the joint editing by many people, are also disadvantages. I’m far more interested in reading something with an identifiable author, who is responsible for the words, than the product of a crowd, where any semblance of an individual voice has been suffocated. And you may feel confident in the information, but don’t forget that I can make any Wikipedia article say anything that I want. Sure, it will get fixed. But maybe the version that you read still contained my misinformation.