By definition, we don't know about the incidents that have not yet been detected and once we find out about them they're no longer undetected and so don't qualify as proof under your standard. Also, there are several entries on the list that hung around for 6-8 years and made their way into publications like scientific journals, books, and obituaries that are effectively going to be around forever.

One particularly embarrassing example on the list involved a real person being falsely accused of taking part in a major points shaving scandal in college despite not even being on the team at the time, with multiple major publications repeating the claim. It was only discovered after 6 years or so because a film reviewer got an email claiming he was omitted from a film about the scandal because he wasn't even on the team, and believed that person enough to start digging despite all the coverage insisting otherwise: http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater...

No, obviously it does not mean that. That known flaws have been fixed says nothing about the prevalence of unknown flaws.

The "consoles generations" articles have certainly not been fixed.

I think mmphosis was being tongue in cheek given the article being discussed.

In any case, they didn't make the claim about disaster articles.