Wikipedia is good for general information. It can be better than Google in locating relevant sources: 5 instead of 50,000. But always check out its sources.
I periodically check out the Wiki article on the high school I graduated from some years ago. There is a constant barrage of “Britney Spears is a graduate….the American History teacher is a dweeb..” type comments which are up for a short while and then corrected.
For controversial topics, it is not so good, as there are often some editors who are biased.
Take Chile and Allende, a subject I have researched intently for many years. The Spanish version of Wikipedia appears to have been written by an Allende acolyte: extreme bias. While the English version of Wikipedia also shows a certain bias towards Allende,it is much less biased. The Declaration on the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy, by which the House of Deputies voted by a 63% majority to condemn Allende and in effect invite the military to have a coup, can be found in Wikipedia, but only if one is looking for it.
With those warnings, I find Wikipedia to be a useful source. No, it is not the Supreme Being with regards to always having objective, factual information. But if used correctly, it is very useful.
