[checkyoursudo]

I am sympathetic to your analogy. I think it works well enough.

But it falls a bit short in that encyclopedias, lossy or not, shouldn't affirmatively contain false information. The way I would picture a lossy encyclopedia is that it can misdirect by omission, but it would not change A to ¬A.

Maybe a truthy-roulette enclyclopedia?

[tomrod]

I guarantee every encyclopedia has mistakes.

[Jensson]

I remember a study where they checked if wikipedia had more errors than paper encyclopedias, and they found there were about as many errors in both.

That study ended the "you can't trust wikipedia" argument, you can't trust anything but wikipedia is an as good as it gets second hand reference.