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.