No analogy holds 100%. It feels the same to me. Yes there are many differences. As with every analogy.
My point is that if you edit an article on Wikipedia, you can't reasonably expect the article to be as you left it. Every article is ever changing and nobody gets to stake a claim to anything they write.
This analogy doesn't work because one of Wikipedia's rules is that nobody owns any article, even if they wrote it themselves:
> All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by a community of volunteer contributors. Individual contributors, also called editors, are known as Wikipedians. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it).
> Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:
>> Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone
> Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content
Open source software projects are different because each repo is usually controlled by at least one owner who can make decisions based solely on their own preferences. On Wikipedia, every disagreement is put to discussion and there is no article owner who can overrule everyone else.