Wikipedia says AARO has resolved “half” of its “510 UAP reports” with instances of “weather balloons”. AARO has resolved only four cases, none of which were weather balloons. I find it hard to believe this was an honest mistake.

In Wikipedia's article for the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office they state that:

"AARO has opened hundreds of investigations since its founding in 2022. Half of these have been resolved with mundane explanations, for instance, weather balloons. The other half remain unexplained, with insufficient data to reach any conclusion."

Their primary source is the ODNI 2022 UAP report, and their secondary source is a livescience article summarizing that report.

I can give them some grace if they are just copying and pasting from the livescience artice, it has a few mistakes in it, but it's still different enough to wonder how they genuinely got the final result that's on wikipedia.

Livescience article:

Of the 366 newly opened cases, 195 have been initially resolved with relatively mundane explanations; according to the report, 26 cases were identified as drones, 163 were classified as "balloons or balloon-like entities," and six were labeled as airborne clutter, such as birds or plastic bags.

But, when you look at the actual report, it says this:

ODNI report:

AARO’s initial analysis and characterization of the 366 newly identified reports, informed by a multi-agency process, judged more than half as exhibiting unremarkable characteristics:

26 characterized as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) or UAS-like entities;163 characterized as balloon or balloon-like entities; and 6 attributed to clutter.

Initial characterization does not mean positively resolved or unidentified.

It's fine if wikipedia copied from an article that said AARO resolved half of its cases. They should have looked at the primary source more carefully and saw that they were talking about initial characterization. But they did look at the primary source, and they did know it was characterization, so where did the genuine mistake begin and end? Look at the rest of the ODNI report, then look at what wikipedia says

Rest of ODNI report:

Initial characterization does not mean positively resolved or unidentified. This initial characterization better enables AARO and ODNI to efficiently and effectively leverage resources against the remaining 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports. Some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.

Rest of Wikipedia:

Out of the 366, 171 remained uncharacterized.[50][58][59] The report noted that some of these uncharacterized UAPs appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities and that these reported incidents required further analysis.

You can't know it's a characterization and think it's a resolution at the same time. I mean, not unless you're crazy and your mind is always changing in the present moment, but those kinds of people are not exactly the pedantic encyclopedia editor type.

You can go here to see all the resolved report from aaro: https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Cases/UAP-Case-Resolution-Reports/ As you can see, there are only four, with one being a "commercial LTA lighting system" balloon.