The term DAO as it's used now is orthogonal to blockchain and crypto.
It's mostly a term to describe codified governance/community systems. There may be point systems implemented via crypto tokens, but in the vast majority of cases those would be better implemented on centralized ledgers since there's someone with centralized control over either the token issuance, the communication channels, or other essential resources.
If they were developed now, Stack Overflow and Wikipedia would be considered DAOs.
That would just indicate the term 'DAO' doesn't mean anything at all.
I'm unable to find an actual example of anything calling itself a DAO which doesn't also play with cryptocurrency tokens, so I'm pretty sure the term isn't used outside of that fanbase.
Stack Overflow was developed as (and is still operated as) a for-profit/profit-motivated Corporation (Stack Exchange Inc.). No one considers it a DAO in any form, especially not the "autonomous" part. Unless you mean the gamified community elements, but you can't really call that an "organization" either because it's entirely disorganized (and sometimes highly dysfunctional) beyond the game mechanics and more importantly extremely centralized to Stack Overflow's servers.
Wikipedia is run as a not-for-profit Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation). It doesn't seem anything like DAO either. Again, unless you mean the community of contributors to Wikipedia, and that also is extremely centralized to Wikipedia servers and doesn't have anything resembling "autonomous", not even something resembling Stack Overflow's game mechanics.
The "autonomous" in DAO still only means "smart contracts" and no one is using DAO as a term for traditional corporate structures other than those intentionally confused by or wishing to confuse what "autonomous" means in the acronym.
