Yeah, but there's a huge difference between publishing bleeding edge research that may still have fluctuating epistemic status and publishing literature reviews/overviews/surveys of the core foundations of particular fields that are well-studied and proven.

Most academic journals publish the former, not the latter. Academics are typically publishing research they think will push their fields forward some day or illuminate something as of yet misunderstood. These papers typically require lots of subject area knowledge about the current cutting edge research and landscape of very specialized fields--thus partly explaining the low readership.

I think it'd be a mistake to try to jam everything, especially theories or results for which the jury is still out, into wikipedia. The average person is not typically scientifically literate and has difficulties distinguishing between claims that have substantial evidence and history backing them and more recent claims that are still being researched.

Also, what's up with this article? It's quite insubstantial and has little to no content, let alone careful analysis of the situation. It's quite evident to me that it's biased garbage with an agenda of tricking poorly educated people into thinking modern higher-education is a waste of time and money (spoiler alert--it isn't, and without it we wouldn't even have many of the practical commercial developments (usually not associated w/ academia) we see today).