Not an expert on Section 230, but I wonder if Wikipedia might be treated differently than Twitter or Facebook.

Section 230 says that websites aren't the "publisher" of content posted by their users. This makes sense for a forum where a user posts under their own name without much/any oversight from the site itself.

Wikipedia isn't a forum, it presents itself as a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and does not make it clear which user contributed what content. Encyclopedias are inherently claiming the accuracy of their information-that's their whole purpose.

Here's an article that pretty much answers your question with "I don't know, probably not": https://www.cnet.com/culture/is-wikipedia-safe-from-libel-liability/

But here's wikipedia's own guidelines on libelous content where it acknowledges that such content may put it at legal risk: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel

Seems to me, the first step would be Project Veritas asking Wikipedia to remove the content. If it doesn't, they may have a case. Project Veritas has sued media outlets before, maybe they should roll the dice.