I think there's an argument to be made that the impact of temporary errors in an MDN page is more significant than temporary accuracy errors on someone's Wikipedia article. If a developer goes off incorrect information on MDN it can waste days-to-weeks of development effort and potentially lead to defective software in end-users' hands.
To be fair, maybe people should view MDN skeptically just like they do Wikipedia. But I think it's valuable for it to be a reliable source and review-first is a good way to maintain that.
I don’t think I would agree. There are so many many different topics on Wikipedia. I think in all likelihood there is an enormously bigger amount of topics on Wikipedia that could lead to far bigger problems than some days of time wasted for a software developer, if the pages were to contain seriously bad information.
To be fair, maybe people should view MDN skeptically just like they do Wikipedia. But I think it's valuable for it to be a reliable source and review-first is a good way to maintain that.