I have drive-by-fixed many articles, including controversial ones like the George Floyd one. What I did was fix it, then post on Talk page with details. Looking through, it appears that most of the fixes remain. For the ones that don't, the precise language no longer appears but the article has since been written over the years since, and the fix is no longer necessary since it is correct.

I've noticed that I easily succeed at things many other people have real trouble with, this kind of thing included. It's a pity it's not particularly monetizable at a good rate, or I could simply launder other people's solutions through me. Maybe I, or a friend, can take a look at Galloway some time this week.

What happens when you just change the articles, and include a supporting citation?

In the case of genuine errors, is there anybody actually arguing on the other side?

I understand debates about whether or not things are worthy of inclusion (like unproved accusations), and there's a whole separate category of controversial viewpoints, but I've never come across meaningful pushback on unambiguous factual errors. You should just be able to fix things. I've certainly done so many times in the past, and I've never gotten anything "shot down" at all. In my experience, factual corrections get zero pushback because why would they?

I don't really understand complaining that people aren't fixing errors on Wikipedia if you aren't fixing them yourself.

Also, what are the dates that Brigham Young was added and then removed from the Michael Jackson article? Vandalism happens all the time but I'm pretty shocked that could stay up for a year. But I can't find any reference to it on the internet aside from your comment here, and WikiBlame isn't finding it either (looking up "Brigham" starting from Jan 2001 yields "Your search term was not found at all. Check the settings and try again." but maybe it's broken?)

> In the case of genuine errors, is there anybody actually arguing on the other side?

Oh yeah, that happens if your edit goes against one of Wikipedia's sacred policies (they all are). I have that issue on the Dutch Wikipedia where a number of places in the bilingual province of Frisia shifted their official names to the Frisian variants instead of the Dutch, and where in one case in the course of three decades the old Dutch name dropped out of use completely¹ except for… Wikipedia, which relies on a single outdated (or misinterpreted) document published by the national language society. That Wikipedia branch has a policy which mandates the use of that document, so even though it is demonstrably showing an obsolete name, Wikipedia editors who like that status quo (often due to a dislike of regional languages and identity — this will be familiar to Welsh and Catalan folk too) will defend those 'facts' and slap anyone suggesting change with that policy document.

To my estimate changing a standing Wikipedia policy requires being a high-profile editor for at least a decade and investing around twenty hours a week for about half a year to garner enough support to change it. Most people just consider the Dutch Wikipedia a lost cause in this regard and give up. What's annoying is that Wikipedia is often taken as authoritative in terms of simple facts (like in the case of this flag), and factual errors leak out across the internet.

1: That is, you won't find the old names in the place itself, nor used (in Dutch, or any language) by the local residents, nor on its signage, nor on its municipal website, nor in the local media (or even national media mostly), nor on most maps, et cetera.

From the talk page of George Galloway: " Currently the article stands as a detailed report of every accusation upon the person. The article should be shortened by removing allegations which have proven not true. The article gives much more focus to negative allegations than is normal for article on a person and reading it, portrays a negatively biased picture of the person. " clearly against their policy of bias, with nothing being done, except to bias it further.