People with just a Wikipedia-level knowledge will argue with actual experts as if Wikipedia is equivalent.

Of course, you can't really say that distrusting experts is unique to encyclopedias.

But isn't that the same as people who argue because "they read it on a magazine/on the newspaper"? So they are wrong -- is it Wikipedia's fault though?

An encyclopedia is always the starting point, never the end of serious research. (It's ok however to stick to Wikipedia if a superficial acquaintance with the topic is enough!).

If there's something in a wikipedia article that experts will argue against, the article needs updating to be compatible with, even if does not include, expert-level knowledge.

Some people just demand that Wikipedia be a universal factual info database, missing nothing. It'd be nice, though.

There really isn't such a thing though for many topics as a universal factual info database. For many, e.g. historical, topics different books have different areas of focus and interpret events differently. Encyclopedias do to a certain degree (and historical "truth" may shift over time) but, in general, they're not the place to hash out the "right" interpretation of events.

> historical, topics different books have different areas of focus and interpret events differently

In those areas the fact isn't the base fact, but claims of fact. We don't know who explored which bit of the great pyramid in which order, and may never, but we know of many specific claims.

The fact check wouldn't be "The great pyramid X" but "Herodotus said X about the great pyramid".

> in general, they're not the place to hash out the "right" interpretation of events.

Once you scope the problem correctly it's not a problem. The point isn't to solve historical riddles, it's to document what evidence we have.

Sometimes that evidence is broadly accepted measurements (land area of Australia) and other times it's not.