Alright.

This is a rant on Wikipedia, and I'm going to try to stretch this out as much as I can.
Bear with me.

To start this off, it often irks me a little how so many of people on the World Wide Webernets think Wiki is some kind of plague of lies just because it's written and expanded by... well... anybody.
Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but for something anyone with a decent internet connection can edit, it's done damn well.
Sure. If you approach it with no capacity for critical thought whatsoever, you are doomed to eventually be misled (OH NOOOOOES!).

If you aren't a fucking idiot, however, it's a very useful source. And believe it or not, if you see something you think is wrong, you can edit it. Yes, you.
And, hey. If you aren't just a hard-headed nimrod with no real knowledge on the subject whatsoever, you might just have improved an article.

Who knows?

Another fun fact is that most Wikipedia pages use something called 'sources.' What does this mean, you ask? It means that most Wiki articles are based directly on books, reviews, and articles written by actual professionals.
Saying 'Wikipedia isn't a reliable source' is a thinly-disguised distraction, and-while technically true- is entirely irrelevant to any session of the interbutt's favourite passtime (arguing).
When I say it's technically true, I'm not saying that Wikipedia is prancing about with its e-trousers engulfed in flame. I'm saying that I don't believe that Wikipedia is -itself- necessarily a 'source,' at all.
A Wikipedia article cannot draw its own conclusion.
Anything in a decent Wikipedia article is either referencing a "reliable" source, or the author considered the content common knowledge.

On the negative side, if enough of The Free Encyclopedia's "reliable" sources said the sky was green, the sky would be green as far as it was concerned.