I trust them completely to be completely untrustworthy.

William Connolley demonstrates once again why Wikipedia is an untrustworthy reference source.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/william-connolley-demonstrates-once-again-why-wikipedia-is-an-untrustworthy-reference-source/

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html

For everything mainstream, not controversial (read politics related mostly, any era), it's reliable

Example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato

The potato is a root vegetable native to the Americas, a starchy tuber of the plant Solanum tuberosum, and the plant itself, a perennial in the family Solanaceae.[2]

Wild potato species can be found throughout the Americas, from the United States to southern Chile.[3] The potato was originally believed to have been domesticated by indigenous peoples of the Americas independently in multiple locations,[4] but later genetic testing of the wide variety of cultivars and wild species traced a single origin for potatoes. In the area of present-day southern Peru and extreme northwestern Bolivia, from a species in the Solanum brevicaule complex, potatoes were domesticated approximately 7,000–10,000 years ago.[5][6][7] In the Andes region of South America, where the species is indigenous, some close relatives of the potato are cultivated.

Potatoes were introduced to Europe from the Americas in the second half of the 16th century by the Spanish. Today they are a staple food in many parts of the world and an integral part of much of the world's food supply. As of 2014, potatoes were the world's fourth-largest food crop after maize (corn), wheat, and rice.[8]

Following millennia of selective breeding, there are now over 1,000 different types of potatoes.[6] Over 99% of presently cultivated potatoes worldwide descended from varieties that originated in the lowlands of south-central Chile, which have displaced formerly popular varieties from the Andes.[9][10]

The importance of the potato as a food source and culinary ingredient varies by region and is still changing. It remains an essential crop in Europe, especially Northern and Eastern Europe, where per capita production is still the highest in the world, while the most rapid expansion in production over the past few decades has occurred in southern and eastern Asia, with China and India leading the world in overall production as of 2018.

Being a nightshade similar to tomatoes, the vegetative and fruiting parts of the potato contain the toxin solanine and are not fit for human consumption. Normal potato tubers that have been grown and stored properly produce glycoalkaloids in amounts small enough to be negligible to human health, but if green sections of the plant (namely sprouts and skins) are exposed to light, the tuber can accumulate a high enough concentration of glycoalkaloids to affect human health.[11][12]

...

For the rest it's mostly a sanitized version of the facts, biased eventually, incomplete sometimes, or downright false

They are completely biased and censor the fuck out of everything.

I'm gangstalked. Which is quite simply an American zersetzung: a Soviet tactic brought to America from the bloc by Jews. Wikipedia adamantly denies gangstalking exists.

Sometimes I'll think wikipedia's not that bad, then I'll remember their gangstalking page, and know they are jew filth.

The more controversial or disputed a subject, the less I trust an article and/or just look for links in the reference list.

If the article topic could be politicized in any way, shape, or form, then no I could not trust the article.

So much leftist propaganda.

If it's an article about gallium and LEDs, then it's probably fine. Anything that has a hint of political charge to it is so untrustworthy it goes out the other side.

In a nutshell:

I chose “not much”. I originally trusted them alot, but later I learnt about the internal procedures and behavioural patterns of people who govern Wikipedia.

Wikipedia can be useful for articles regarding technology, but their administration and some of their absur policies (WP:G5,WP:G8, WP:G13) act against their purpose.

They also have a policy called WP:IAR that deceives users into thinking they are allowed to ignore rules in favour of making Wikipedia better. Although that's logically productive, it's a trap. They will still sanction the user.

And some of their administrators without any consequences.

There is much to say, but that would probably take about an hour to write. That's the summary.

Never forget: "Balanced and Zionist" wikipedia editing

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY&feature=youtu.be

It literally depends on what I'm going there for. I don't trust them for political and historical events because they fuck with those the most it seems.