But by your own reasoning Wikipedia is even less useful to us because it was written or edited by some random person thousands of years after events transpired.
But here are quotes from ancient sources about Matthew writing in Hebrew.
“Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” – Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” – Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.” – Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
There is wide consensus among actual biblical historians that Matthew was sourced from Mark.
Even going to Christian scholarship they admit this. Although they have some apologetics for it they do admit that interdependance of the gospels is a myth.
This is from an article on bible.org
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
"When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke."
In the article they admit that "In sum, it is quite impossible—and ultimately destructive of the faith—to maintain that there is total independence among the gospel writers."
As Bart Ehrman points out in his debate with Mike Licona the followers of Jesus were illiterate (he cites a study that gives a 3% rate of reading/writing) and spoke Aramaic. The gospels were written 40 or more years later in Greek. There was no Hebrew gospel. There is an older theory about a solution to the synoptic problem (the name given to the problem of the gospels obviously using a common source) that there was an Aramaic common source but now it's believed to be Mark:
"The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan priority (either the two-source hypothesis of Holtzmann or the four-source hypothesis of Streeter). This is the view adopted in this paper as well.9
Stein puts forth eight categories of reasons why Mark ought to be considered the first gospel. Though not all of his arguments are of equal weight, both the cumulative evidence and several specific arguments are quite persuasive."
Also the Wiki article happens to match the consensus of all PhD historians regarding the gospels. They do not claim to be eyewitnesses or to be written by the names given to them. That is a 2nd century addition. Ehrman states this clearly at 1:27:00