Some descriptions are definitely taken directly from Wikipedia with little to no changes. If anything, I'd argue that a plagiarism case can be made here.
Wikipedia is a free and accessible source of information. It was created for people to use open information
I don't want to turn this into another thread about plagiarism and why it is immoral to use other people's content without crediting the original author. If you are a professional, you should already know this.
I would just like to point out Wikipedia's terms of use:
Re-use: Reuse of content that we host is welcome, though exceptions exist for content contributed under "fair use" or similar exemptions under applicable copyright law. Any reuse must comply with the underlying license(s).
When you reuse or redistribute a text page developed by the Wikimedia community, you agree to attribute the authors in any of the following fashions:
- Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are reusing (since each page has a history page that lists all contributors, authors and editors);
- Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project Website; or
- Through a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions).
source:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content