The problems are complex, because no doubt, some people really are quite proud of their contributions, and any editing or wholesale discarding of their work will no doubt be offensive to them. Having read some discussion pages, I could see that some people get really protective of their 'baby'. That means it would be better to be more diplomatic and if someone has made an entry, it would possibly be better to edit or adding to their work rather than rewriting it. But with that said, it's basically sacrificing accuracy and quality in order to keep some insignificant person on the internet, happy, that is unless the person who wants to 'correct' anything is actually making it worse.
Then there are some articles, which I've read, that I know that they really do need a complete rewrite, as the whole structure isn't bad, it's awful, it reads like a below average school research project where everything is just cut and pasted, and absolutely no effort has been made in thinking about the article as a whole. You know there's a problem when you go to an article to get information, and your meager knowledge is sufficient to identify that the content in the article is even worse...
I like using wikipedia as a precursory look into something, but I know full well that controversial topics are usually internet warzones, there's a lot of historical revisionism, various forms of patriotism/nationalism that tries to slant outlooks, there's loads of bias, even on seemingly noncontroversial things, as such, I've seen enough poorly written articles to know that wikipedia needs to be read sceptically. Any student who references wikipedia should be immediately given a 0, as it isn't an authoritative source, but they should also be taught how to verify things, and how to better identify bias or slanted writing and even poor writing, taking into consideration that everyone will still use the site.