Wikipedia is a wonderful creation, but no thoughtful person regards it as definitive, but then no thoughtful person regards any one book or reference as definitive.
In a sense, since all of us are constantly changing or revealing hitherto unknown aspects of ourselves, the changes (discounting malicious ones) made to Wikipedia only reflect this reality.
As an avid reader of biography and history, I know there are an amazing number of errors or poor interpretations that creep into books, even prestigious books.
Also, the discovery of new material - as a stash of letters or DNA testing on remains - often changes the understanding of a previously accepted historical interpretation.
Just like the physical nature of light, behaving both as particles and waves, our history is subject to different understandings from different perspectives. And just like particles under the Uncertainty Principle, we can never fix the precise nature of an event. Merely observing it, changes its properties.
Like Einstein, my temperament would be more at ease if the Creator did not play with dice, but we know now that clearly He/She does.
