An accuracy dispute is probably the simplest kind of dispute to resolve, as it regards factual disprovable information where there are probably at least some neutral sources. It is typically easier to resolve than any other kind of larger neutrality dispute, even easier than a terminology dispute (note that any wiki page title is a potential refactoring and thus dispute), and much easier than a political dispute or most identity disputes. So very often it is possible to simply "fix the facts" and make no "issue" of it.
However, if an error is claimed by anyone to be evidence of intent to perform simple vandalism, then, the issue can quickly escalate to the political or personal, e.g. such claims can be used to justify ad hominem deletes even.
For this reason, it is important to identify very quickly when accuracy is at issue, and to quickly and simply correct, to be bold in making changes - so that parties with a political motive to accuse contributors of "being vandals" don't notice. The odds of this are low if accuracy is everybody's problem and everybody's mission, and everyone is bold at fixing errors and ignoring the reputation of editors. To encourage this, many believe that for material of any importance or value, anonymous IP numbers are the best way to leave an edit trail. Since no one trusts those but anyone can trace them via the ISP, they ensure maximum scrutiny of edits and maximum accountability of the contributor. If such an edit stands, it is probably ONLY because it is right.