Nice easy question.
Not sure I like the wikipedia link - in general, wikipedia suffers from cranks editors and edit wars so that some pages are quite awful (I see less of that now than I used to, but maybe I'm just looking at areas where fewer cranks are editing than in the areas I used to look at).
The wikipedia RAID article is much better than it used to be: for example it used to claim that RAID5 was the be-all and end-all of perfect RAID design, fully as reliable as RAID 10, ideal for all relational databases, which was just plain nonsense; I think the anti-raid-5 warnings from Dell, Hitachi, Seagate, Netapp, EMC, HDS, SUN and IBM are probably what has allowed that to be changed. But it still contains some rather odd statements, eg it says that IBM's system 38 in 1986 had an early implementation of what is now called RAID: my objection to that statement is the word "early", nothing else; RAID-like things were around much earlier: back in 1978 an IBM patent (for something very like RAID 5 - where the only new things claimed are all based on rotating the parity round the discs, instead of using a dedicated parity disc) mentioned disc duplexing (now called RAID 1) and dedicated parity disc systems (now called RAID 4) as prior art, as noted further down the same page - clearly nothing stops a wikipedia page from contradicting itself quite blatantly.
When the Berkeley team published its RAID work the R stood for Redundant so RAID0 is effectively a contradiction, since it has no redundancy. In fact most modern RAID systems wouldn't be RAID in the sense of the Berkeley team, because they don't use cheap discs (the I was Inexpensive, not Independent).