While many people question the truth of what they read in wiki, I question their understanding of truth itself.
Is it true that the sum of angles is 180 degrees? What if the lines are not in the plane?
Is it true that it is colder today than yesterday? What about the wind chill?
Is it true that the murder was premeditated? What if the jury was split?
Is it true that I married the right woman? What about that date I missed?
I was struck by the notion that folk tales could be more true than any one reality. The continued retelling kept them fresh and relevant. This held until the brothers Grimm chose the one version of each tale to publish and even took the edge off of most to make their book more palatable. See Folk Truth
There is something to be said of physical measurement in a skillfully controlled experiment but even these results are suspect until independently replicated. See Measurement
Experimental evidence still requires interpretation and that is often left to the academically qualified who Kuhn has shown will resist a Paradigm Shift for very human reasons.
The general public does respect credentialed expertise but that can mislead when abused. See Proof of Heaven
Wikipedians assume the role of journalists by choosing and explaining the results of interpretations made elsewhere. This resolves many disputes but is still subject to bias and infuriating to experts used to more respect.
Federated wiki is proud to host multiple points of view. However, it must maintain mechanisms to be "less wrong" as it progresses else it will become a pool of stagnant and putrid misinformation. The relentless retracing of reason justified by uncontested observation seems our best hope.