Probably because it's not merely destruction but creation with volume.
As a wikipedia reader I guess I have the luxury to laugh about it knowing stuff like this is eventually discovered and corrected
The thing to remember is to check the cited sources whenever the information is remotely important to you.
See https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/16/wikipedia_16_birthday... or this from Charles Seife:
"Wikipedia is like an old and eccentric uncle. He can be a lot of fun—over the years he's seen a lot, and he can tell a great story. He's also no dummy; he's accumulated a lot of information and has some strong opinions about what he's gathered. You can learn quite a bit from him. But take everything he says with a grain of salt. A lot of the things he thinks he knows for sure aren't quite right, or are taken out of context. And when it comes down to it, sometimes he believes things that are a little bit, well, nuts. If it ever matters to you whether something he said is real or fictional, it's crucial to check it out with a more reliable source."
—Charles Seife, Virtual Unreality, Appendix, "The top ten dicta of the internet skeptic", Dictum no. 1.
I am only asking because I understand that most of the higher mathematics pages on Wikipedia are written by actual mathematicians – and pretty much unreadable to anyone who is not a mathematician and already fully conversant with the topics concerned.
Maths inasmuch as WP can cover it surely didn't make heaps advances in the last decades, except perhaps in the pedagogy department (that I can source, but it is literally decades) and category theory to give the whole thing structure (also pretty much cut and dried as soon as Bourbaki, I believe, though reception may take a while).
What he does not describe is my disability to understand most topics good enough to find out if a source is reliable or not. That a paper got into a famous money-making journal certainly is not a guarantee for reliability.
Why not suggest instead to check more reliable sources. Would that sound too diminishing, and an indefinite determiner is added as buffer?
Well, if I tried learning linguistics only from Wikipedia I won't ever find out.
That's not merely destruction but creation with volume.