I understand that "truth" and "facts" are squishy philosophical concepts at the edges, but I'm talking about something much more basic. There are Wikipedia pages which are flat out wrong (by any common definition of the term) and yet the editors won't allow any corrections because the primary sources are also wrong.

One thing that might help a bit would be to tag or color code specific statements with a confidence factor. So a statement sourced only from a single trash site like the NY Times or Fox News would be red, whereas another statement sourced from multiple independent scholarly journals would be green. Or something like that.

> There are Wikipedia pages which are flat out wrong (by any common definition of the term) and yet the editors won't allow any corrections because the primary sources are also wrong.

Primary sources aren't really considered reliable on wikipedia (with some exceptions), so if such a situation is happening (and you have a source for whatever version you think is correct, since just trust me bro doesn't go far on wikipedia) and you can't resolve it on the talk page, probably time to escalate the situation.

> There are Wikipedia pages which are flat out wrong (by any common definition of the term) and yet the editors won't allow any corrections because the primary sources are also wrong.

Not saying that doesn't happen, but do you have an example of such a page?