How about "desert"? Wikipedia's "desert" article said for almost a year that the mean winter temperature in cold deserts, such as those found in Greenland and Antarctica, is typically between +4 and –2 °C.

False info inserted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=prev&...

False info deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert&diff=60327...

The desert article was classified as a "Good article" during that time and got about a million views. This is not an obscure article, nor was the article on Maurice Jarre at the time of his death, which is why the hoax instantly entered newspapers around the world.

So I accept your point to a degree: many of the topics mentioned in that article are very obscure, but even a high-visibility, highly trafficked article can contain absolute balderdash mixed in with solid information and really good writing.

I'm also not trying to make an argument against Wikipedia – I am a Wikipedian and I love Wikipedia, and use it daily, but it's important to be aware of its weaknesses and vulnerabilities.