Evaluating the quality of a source was one of the most difficult and also most important skills we were taught in university. Do I still get it wrong. Oh dear,

Evaluating the quality of a source was one of the most difficult and also most important skills we were taught in university. Do I still get it wrong. Oh dear, yes. Did I learn how important it was? Oh yes. I especially learned to qualify what I wrote and to mark when a source could not perfectly be trusted, but the argument/point of view was interesting to discuss nonetheless. Why can't Wikipedia at least either remove false information once provided credible sources. Or at least somehow mark the relevant section/parts with a disclaimer so that readers are at least aware that something might be suspicious. Could it be gamed? Weaponized? Probably. Would it be helpful to readers? Maybe. But how is the current situation better?