The thing is, I'd like to help, but I'm not dedicated that much as to mount a multi-year siege campaign to fix some error in Wikipedia, even if I know it's wrong. Life is short, TODO list is ever-growing and I have only so much attention to be spent on fighting petty bureaucrats. I just know Wikipedia is not to be trusted in any controversial subject, because the advertised idea of finding truth by consensus is false in practice - it's pushing the point of whoever knows the arcane bureaucracy best and is most obsessed and out-games everybody. The factual truth plays very small role in these games.
That last bit was intended to be humor, smsm42. Although it can be fun.
I totally understand not having the time. I research a lot, and WP's very helpful. So I like to pay back, and if it takes me an hour to discover something, I might add that. Takes a minute. Stick a cite next to a couple of sentences, 99.8% solid. (Unless they have a secretary keeping an eye on their bio. ;-)
Look, anything you have time to improve ... 5 minutes ... can be helpful. I gave several examples. Adding a bit here and there is unlikely to attract 'petty bureaucrats'. They exist, but so do bees. I might hear from someone twice a year, and one of them will be a thanks. It's not like it was 10 years ago.
Anybody who complains, easy to look at their qualifications. Logged in or anonymous? How many edits lately? Sound reason for revert? If not revert back ... and walk away. If so, then: that's collaboration for ya.
When it comes to controversy, WP can be a best bet, in the citations. MANY eyes look those pages over.
