With respect to what we call **nodes**, we do treat them the same. The wiki page you linked tries to group in **light clients** , which are programs that rely on a 3rd party for blockchain-related information, with nodes. 

If everyone is running programs that query information from 3rd parties, regardless if it's from a purported 'full node' or a website, the client *can* be fooled. Thus I'd rather say Bitcoin is not susceptible to Sybil attacks, but users of applications that pull from bad sources *are*.

And this excerpt from the linked bitbox article is just wrong:
> While the Lightning Network gave a boost to the number of Bitcoin full nodes, many are not used to verify economic transactions and secure the Bitcoin network

**Nodes**, especially what we consider **full nodes**, *do* verify all transactions.

netstatic

bitcoin

Since only economic nodes matter, doesn't this sound a little bit like POS?

BTC_Commons

Well, if u think about it, if all nodes are the same, then Bitcoin would be susceptible to Sybil attacks. The fact it isn't, is partly because economic nodes are the ones that really count when it comes down to enforcing consensus 