I would love to see the result of following the money on those edits; who is making those edits, etc.
And politics / anti-war stuff is, I'm sure, much much worse.
[0] https://www.healthitoutcomes.com/doc/wikipedia-is-wrong-of-t...
But Wikipedia articles are huge, containing many pieces of information. What if an article contains just one outdated piece of information amongst hundreds of others, and the material points are substantially correct?
Edit: note a followup article to the one you posted is here:
https://www.healthitoutcomes.com/doc/was-study-of-wikipedia-...
Apparently, a more reasonable 'accuracy rating' of factual medical statements on Wikipedia is about 55-100% - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/01/is-wiki...
http://intactwiki.org/wiki/Jake_H._Waskett
Searching his name on Google Scholar retrieves references to the published articles of Dr. Brian Morris, with Waskett listed as a co-author many times. Yet Waskett is said to have no particular training, experience or credentials as an academic or medical researcher.
One is left wondering what scholarly contributions Waskett made to that research.
Regarding this question posed by the BBC to "Orange Mike":
One of the people whose pages he [Cross] has been editing, and has edited over 1800 times, is George Galloway, and he says he knows that Philip Cross is being paid to do this. Do you think that’s likely?
People being paid to edit Wikipedia articles is not conjecture. It's an ugly truth about the platform. On rare occasions paid edits are investigated and exposed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...) but more often than not Wikipedians fail to acknowledge that paid edits are even a problem. And that is itself a huge problem. If the patient can't even admit he's riddled with disease, what hope is there for successful treatment?
Personally speaking: I find it extremely hard to trust any article about celebrities, movies, politicians, products currently available in the marketplace, and even some foundational science and technology articles. It's so easy for paid PR to insert spin into these articles, or, as Cross has done, smears against selected targets.