How is it not? Genuine question, I use wiki a lot, and generally trust the articles, though I have seen some inaccuracies before.

Btw this is not an argument against Wikipedia in any way.

I think it's perfectly valid to criticize it for accepting "blatantly false but "verifiable" " edits. I'm aware that the world is complex and perfection is idealistic, especially when it comes to topics where sources are inherently strongly biased, but publishing false information on a site with the format, style and reputation of Wikipedia is a real problem at a scale with far-reaching impact. To shift the onus of fact-checking onto the user is extremely inefficient and negligent.

I'm not even saying that there is a better solution, but it's certainly an argument criticizing Wikipedia.

But shouldnt fact be neutral? For example: "the holocaust was evil and killed countless innocent civilians" or "the holocaust resulted in (actual estimate) civilian deaths" The former is emotional and the latter is factual, but both highlight the perpetrated evil against the innocent.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying your point.