Even the most complete nonsense can be turned into something "logical"... Take Fox News for example...
I would trust it, but somewhere in the forrest we call wikipedia, there has to be a fake tree.(sorry to go metaphorical, but it was fun!)
I usually trust it but most of the time it's not very useful since some of it is taken word for word out of an encyclopedia I already used. I haven't really spotted anything really messed up since a few years ago where I was doing a project on the Great Depression. The first sentence had nothing to do with it, and it had some ugly words on there. But the rest was fine.
lol, this is a funny story. i was looking up something for some assignment. i cant remember what it was about but anyways i was reading the article and it said someone was a ***. it was really funny. but anyway wiki can be trust worthy but i still use other sources to back me up just in case its a load of crap
Wikipedia is trustworthy for the most part. They do, like others said, monitor the pages. However, I have written useless facts, that are actually senseless to write, but sound real, and nothing was ever done about them. I did remove them, but whatever. If you want to play on wikipedia though, add random comments that sound completely fake, or have your buds have a conversation on it!
I would not cite Wikipedia as a source, however, to use in a report, I would look through Wikipedia and go to the sites that they use for their information. Also, I use Wikipedia for curiosity and personal information, like things about myths, legends, video game details, famous people and such that you would have a hard time finding elsewhere.