I can't tell you how many times I've encountered memers (always conservatives, incidentally) who feel comfortable casually dismissing citations to Wikipedia without reading them.
I've actually never encountered anyone who literally referred to Wikipedia an "SJW encyclopedia." They more typically make more plausible-sounding criticisms: For instance, they dismiss Wikipedia as "not a primary source," without acknowledging the fact that Wikipedia articles *themselves* cite primary sources. Often, many of them. Conservatives also vaguely accuse Wikipedia of political bias, but do not make any real attempt to back up this claim.
I defy anyone to compare Wikipedia entries with "real" Encyclopedia entries on the same subject to find any factual errors or evidence of political bias in the Wikipedia article. I've done this a few times; I usually find the Wikipedia entries to be somewhat superior in terms of content, brevity, and formatting. You can find more Wikipedia articles on specific topics and sub-topics that would typically be beyond the scope of even the most comprehensive encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is the product of countless thousands of hours of research, writing, cite-checking, editing, and re-editing, performed by Wikipedia mods, experts, and amateur contributors the world over.
The Wikipedia project is apathetic to American partisan politics. Evidence of systemic bias would ruin the reputation its creators have carefully built.
Even as traffic to the site has spiked, co-founder Jimmy Wales has remained steadfastly committed to its non-commercial mission even as other platforms (Google, Facebook, etc.) have cashed in.
Wikipedia is one of the marvels of the modern internet. It is literally information at our fingertips: the living, breathing encyclopedia of our times.
Love it, read it, and cite it without shame. If someone gives you grief about Wikipedia "not being a primary source," then just cite one of the primary sources the article itself cites.
Caption this Meme 