Wikipedia, YouTube, and the internet in general are not proper or reliable research materials.
And some of them can be downright dishonest. There is one Wiki article I've encountered about something Giza-related that presents some accurate information but in the same article seriously misquotes a paper written by Mark Lehner. It's a given that if a web page seems to present a few real facts but also tosses in highly dubious, questionable, or downright incorrect information, the entire web page is of no value.
Consider the source. Take serously TheSearcher's admonition to study the subject at hand—written by people who've committed their lives to understanding ancient history on a professional level. These are the people who know what they're talking about, and they can be trusted. As much as it drives the fringe nuts, fringe and alternative writers have not changed any precept of orthodox, professional research because the conclusions of fringe writers have basically no research value.
That is not going to change—for the simple reason that science demands higher standards.