Sharyl Attkisson did an amusing video on the age of astroturf, and how what people see if manipulated. She dived into fake medical stories, and Wikipedia. She deconstructed the problem with Wikipedia when author Philip Roth was not allowed to make edits on his own page, because he wasn't considered a credible source to comment on himself or his books characters. Or that there were paid promoters editors on there, or an audit had 90% of their medical articles disagreeing with medical research, and so on.
Wikipedia is both hit and miss, with a lot more hits than misses. I reference it a lot, because most articles are pretty good, or at least good enough. Most of their lies and bias are lies and bias of omission. (What they say isn't usually wrong, but what they don't say might completely change the context). So they are a pretty good reference. But don't let that lull you into an "Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Celebrity" fallacy. Science is skepticism. Wikipedia is hegemony. Wikipedia has millions of articles, across hundreds of thousands of topics -- and each topic is a community (clique) of editors, and herd-think rules most of them. Some areas a fine. But if one clique is bad, that whole area can be bad; they won't allow counter-factual that disagree with their agenda. And there are bad (biased) areas of wikipedia. Especially in History, Science, Politics, and anything that's controversial. And everything can be political and controversial to folks that focus on any topic.