Well, if you really want to create a strawman argument, the answer is "maybe". Here's the problem:
Intelligence and Knowledge aren't empirical.
Get it? Let's say we have two partisan opinions. The camp that thinks god exists, and the one that thinks it doesn't. To one camp, the other camp might appear "Factually inaccurate and stupid". Who ultimately is correct?
The usual way of determining intelligence and knowledge is by popular consensus. If everyone else reading the article is an idiot and thinks that a post by an idiot is a work of genius, it doesn't matter if you disagree. This is the flaw of peer review.
If you want a few examples to prove this point, you could do some research into why it took so long for people to accept continental drift, the decimal system, the theory of evolution, the person that ORIGINALLY came up with the idea of the periodic table before Mendelev, etcetera.
So is "Intelligence" a necessity for writing a factual article? Not necessarily, but it helps. It doesn't help to innately distrust Wikipedia due to the fact that anyone can post, unless you're incapable of using your own personal judgment.