People complaining about factual inaccuracies on Wikipedia annoy me. It's Wikipedia. The entire point and purpose of it is to fix what you know is wrong.
For once, I'd like to see, "I just touched up the Wikipedia article on this subject to explain it a bit more accurately."
"But then all my changes were reverted by an overprotective editor; I brought the issues up on the talk page, but my comments were brusquely dismissed."
If you don't make any changes, he has nothing to work with except some random whining.
(And yes, that's how it works in the real world, too.)
(In my experience most Wikipedia edits are gratefully received, assuming you provide references for your claims. Kind of like HN, really)
"Touching up the Wikipedia article" has little value in cases like this. Usually the only remedy at that point is to delete the entire thing and start again, which somebody finally did not long ago.
This presupposes
1) I care about fixing it. 2) I have the knowledge to fix it (spotting and removing an inaccuracy is easy, knowing the correct and full set of facts to substitute it with not so much) 3) I can write well enough 4) The Wikipedia process is not convoluted and broken for casual contributors.