Wikipedia will always be in flux. I don't use it much for looking up science based stuff but I do check it to see what's being said about the conflict in Syria, the Israel/Palestine conflict and other contentious geopolitical topics. Edit warring and vandalism/inserting bias are the norm for these pages. (I do edit entries when I have the time.) Arguably there is no "right" answer that can settle arguments about political topicsand no matter what is written somebody will come along and claim bias and change the wording or delete sections they find objectionable. Pages about less publicized event (e.g Russian-Georgian war of 2008, the Mahar Arar affair) are blatantly slanted to one side or another and stay that way for months or even years.

The science articles I have read are sometimes overly technical or needlessly verbose but others know more about that than I do so I can't provide examples. If every person who posts a long rant or complaint on an entry's Talk page took the time to edit(in good faith)the parts they think need improvement the public would benefit by having access to better quality information. As it stands people put a lot of energy in pointing out, often valid, flaws but very few actually do anything about it.

Wikipedia is only as good or as accurate as its editors make it and humans, being the strange creatures we are, have a difficult time agreeing on even relatively basic things so it will always be a work in progress. That it exists is a positive thing overall and to really get a sense of how accurate an entry about a topic you know little about is reading the Talk page is a must. And if you do know have knowledge that you think is missing from an entry or think you can improve the wording...be bold and go for it!