More often than not accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. Only a fraction of the articles in any encyclopedia cannot be disputed. If one relies on only one en

More often than not accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. Only a fraction of the articles in any encyclopedia cannot be disputed. If one relies on only one encyclopedia then one is bound to copy the errors (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia&oldid=671820885 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Errors_...) or some specific perspective on historic events, personae and even significance of scientific achievements. A simple example are WP articles about the same topic in different languages, an even more stark contrast is any western encyclopedia compared to one that was created in a socialist country. I still have access to the latter and, especially for historic events, enjoy reading the other side of the story. What each encyclopedia should do to nurture critical thinking: put "might be wrong" in bold above each article. And we could get used to not referring to "WP article XYZ", but instead to "WP article XYZ, Version N" because otherwise our references to those articles are absolutely useless for people who want to do serious research. PS: I think wikimedia is (was?) on the right track by building some kind of "fact engine" where different, even contradicting versions of the same facts could be registered and some algorithm would then determine which would automatically be included in pages as the "most probably correct". (Sorry, I don't have any links to back that up, this is what one of their devs told me about 2 years ago.)