Wikipedia is an ingenious invention, really. It’s an online encyclopedia that people can use, free of charge, that has generally good information about a wide range of subjects. Since it’s edited by the general public, though, it has some unique characteristics.
The theory behind its reliability is that since it’s open to editing by people like you and me, any misinformation that shows up on the site will quickly be edited out or corrected by a more informed individual. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes, Wikipedia articles are written by sources that are quite biased. Writers can be anyone – so perhaps that article is written or heavily edited by someone with an agenda.
Here is an article about how Diebold (the manufacturer of voting machines) totally edited a section of their Wikipedia page to get rid of information that was critical of their voting machines. That’s just one of the companies that “cleans up” Wikipedia; the article mentions others.
Here is an article about how a congressional staffer ’beefed up’ his boss’ page. You can compare the “before and after” articles here. Most people who are looking up “factual” articles, such as Wikipedia purports to be, would prefer information that is somewhat less biased.
Here, an anti-gay group and a lesbian group want to have a kind of “editing war” over what Wikipedia will report about whether or not homosexuality is a psychological disorder. Personally, I’m not sure that either of these organizations is what I would consider wholly unbiased.
You get the idea.
There is even a site, Wikipedia Watch, for people who want to report (or be made aware of) the biased editing on the site.
In other words, while Wikipedia is a good site, its editable nature prevents it from being a great site. It’s very often one of the first places I’ll look when I am doing some light research, but it’s only a place to start. If you want information that has a higher degree of probable accuracy, it is best to look for a more reputable source: perhaps a site written by experts in a field, that can’t be changed by people like you and me. The articles in Wikipedia are only as good as the person that writes them: that’s why many here would view it with less regard, and take it with a large chunk of salt.
This is an answer I wrote previously for another venue but which applies here.