By the way where does Wikipedia reputation for inaccuracy come from? I've never known it be wrong. But I only read the serious pages. No reason anyone would lie about a historical date say.
A lot of arguments would be solved if people checked it. Not to start a debate; but the so called climate change 'scientific' debate ended for me when I looked up the climate sceptics and almost none of them were climate scientists. It's not a debate between the scientists; it's a debate between the sceptics and the scientists.
Are the celebrity/sports etc pages deliberately filled with lies?
When it comes to controversial or limited public knowledge topics, the entries are worthless. There a very limited amount of fact being held together with the proverbial "chewing gum, duct tape, and baling wire". It's a lot like the talking heads after a disaster. The more mundane stuff (i.e. hard sciences, literature, etc.) are reliable.