If contain and consist and replace a new word and it is supposed to be an encyclopædia then maybe it is a legit move. It's like English professor ranting about use vs. utilise. Mixing words are bad attempts and precise wording is objectively better, tho I highly question if the machine effort replacing a ambiguous word is good enough to detect what it actually means in context.
Yes I've been changing "utilise" to "use" by hand in Wikipedia for many years. When I read "utilise" I hear Homer Simpson in a top hat trying to be posh.
Perhaps some people find monosyllabic words embarrassing. Another word sometimes misused instead of "use" is "leverage", and you'll often find "ubiquitous" in the same paragraph in engineering/marketing contexts. But "leverage" should not always be replaced with "use": sometimes "exploit" would be a better alternative. And "leverage" has a proper meaning in finance, of course.
