Since when are encyclopedic references expected to be imprecise? As a reader when I come across a reference to wikipedia I interpret the citation as a literary

Since when are encyclopedic references expected to be imprecise? As a reader when I come across a reference to wikipedia I interpret the citation as a literary expression of accuracy and expect the cited value to be extremely close to what I would find in the wikipedia article. Without the wikipedia citation I understand that there is some wiggle room. Similarly, if someone says "the board is five feet and one half inch long" I expect that they are within a half inch if not closer. But if they merely say "the board is five feet long" I am not shocked to find a board that is 4'11" or 5'1". You wanted it to be imprecise because it made your argument sound better. Lets be honest you really did your best to come up with such a verbose example: "42%, based on the fraction of bombers deployed, as reported on an unlocked Wikipedia page five minutes ago" versus "Wikipedia reports that a little less than half the force that bombed Dresden" or "Wikipedia reports that almost half the force that bombed Dresden" The latter example required the addition of six letters or one word.