That’s a shit definition even by Wikipedia’s own admission

There is no universally agreed upon definition of capitalism; it is unclear whether or not capitalism characterizes an entire society, a specific type of social order, or crucial components or elements of a society. Societies officially founded in opposition to capitalism (such as the Soviet Union) have sometimes been argued to actually exhibit characteristics of capitalism. Nancy Fraser describes usage of the term “capitalism” by many authors as “mainly rhetorical, functioning less as an actual concept than as a gesture toward the need for a concept”. Scholars who are uncritical of capitalism rarely actually use the term “capitalism”. Some doubt that the term “capitalism” possesses valid scientific dignity, and it is generally not discussed in mainstream economics, with economist Daron Acemoglu suggesting that the term “capitalism” should be abandoned entirely. Consequently, understanding of the concept of capitalism tends to be heavily influenced by opponents of capitalism and by the followers and critics of Karl Marx.

The introduction of The Cambridge History of Capitalism approaches it this way

What are the salient features of modern capitalism and how were these features manifested in earlier times? The scholarly literature refers variously to agrarian capitalism, industrial capitalism, financial capitalism, monopoly capitalism, state capitalism, crony capitalism, and even creative capitalism. Whatever the specific variety of capitalism denoted by these phrases, however, the connotation is nearly always negative. This is because the word “capitalism” was invented and then deployed by the critics of capitalists during the first global economy that clearly arose after 1848 and the spread of capitalism worldwide up to 1914. In the resurgence of a global economy at the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, scholars accept that there can be many varieties of capitalism and that there are comparative advantages to each variety (Hall and Soskice 2001).

Four elements, however, are common in each variant of capitalism, whatever the specific emphasis:

1. private property rights;
2. contracts enforceable by third parties;
3. markets with responsive prices; and
4. supportive governments.

Each of these elements must deal specifically with capital, a factor of production that is somehow physically embodied, whether in buildings and equipment, or in improvements to land, or in people with special knowledge. Regardless of the form it takes, however, the capital has to be long lived and not ephemeral to have meaningful economic effects. […]

Beyond these technical terms used by modern economists to define “capital” objectively for purposes of academic research, however, “capitalism” must also be considered as a system within which markets operate effectively to create price signals that can be observed and responded to effectively by everyone concerned – consumers, producers, and regulators.

Those 4 elements come closer to economics textbook definitions: some sort of economic system involving private property rights, contracts, & competitive markets maintained & enforced by government.