Id est vs Illud est 

On 19th October, someone revised the page to change "i.e." from the standard, accepted "id est" to "illus est", but did not update the footnote about "i.e." vs "e.g.", leaving it stating "id est".

If every other site and dictionary is wrong and "i.e." really is "illud est" and not "id est", should there not be a note pointing this out under the entry, so people realise why the definition given isn't what they expect?

Or is this simply a mistake? "illud est" is valid Latin, but I don't see any indication that it's the expansion of "i.e."