As of 21 December 2021, The English Wikipedia has 6,426,686 articles and 54,823,175 pages. There are 42,756,378 registered users who edit articles and add content on Wikipedia. In addition, there are 325 different language editions of Wikipedia (Spanish, French, German...).
Reviews of Wikipedia compared to other encyclopedias like Britannica and World Book have shown that Wikipedia is more accurate and more current. As an example of its currency, the recent tornado that affected several US states including the destruction of Mayfield, Kentucky had a Wikipedia article while the tornado was still moving, and a full and detailed description within hours of the tornado's end.
Many teachers and college professors do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source, even though Wikipedia articles have references to trusted sources; that's a key guideline for all Wikipedia articles. Some people say that anyone who thinks Wikipedia is an unreliable source should continue their quest to find a better website.
So... what do you think of Wikipedia? Do you use it as a reference. Are you a registered user? Do you edit on Wikipedia?
Generally reliable, BUT… (like with all information-sources) it's not free and/or immune from manipulation, as warned by Berlin's state-media:https://www.youtube.com/embed/w4EdAQpEdNY
And note that this dates back to 2014 and ONLY mentions discovered and documented corporate public-relations (P. R.) manipulations. We all know that the world has changed significantly then, and that there are more than just corporate interests who benefit from controlling the flow of information. Methods now may have become far more sophisticated than the bad-faith edits & admin-infiltration methods in the video-report.
Open-source projects (like Wikipedia) works best not only with many good-faith users, but also many good-faith contributors. Wikipedia's problem then (as I suspect is still the case now) is the declining good-faith contributors, which only makes the infiltration-problem even worse.
Then, there's the issue of topics. As mentioned by fellow G@G-users, bias is far more obvious in more controversial articles (esp. approaching politics, geopolitics, etc.). Certain sources considered reputable to some editors will be propaganda to others (lol 🤣 as though sources that propagate ideas are not by definition propaganda!), and will be rejected, removed, and/or replaced with others from opposing persuasions, instead of just listing the data-sets, reasoning, assumptions, and counter-arguments of each side side-by-side.
That said, I still use it often, and contribute whenever I can. But still, check the sources (esp. the more shocking, definitive, and controversial the claim), ask who benefits from the explanation as is, and use (a) online-translator (s) to contrast its contents in other languages (esp. in topics of international disputes to see a fuller picture of the global dispute). But with less significant topics (ex. types of cheese, ), guard can possibly be lowered to a reasonable, more-appropriate extent.