"MY AMERICAN SENSES SMELL A CONSPIRACY THEORIST FROM THE GUY WHO MADE THIS NON-BIGOTED WEBSITE"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/27/wikipedia-biased-bbc-how-left-took-platform/

https://blog.reputationx.com/is-wikipedia-reliable

“Wikipedia is not a reliable source…. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect.”
– Wikipedia

There's also citogenesis. A false claim is made, put on Wikipedia, news sources use as a citation Wikipedia, the wiki is then edited to use the news' citation as a citation.

https://theconversation.com/students-are-told-not-to-use-wikipedia-for-research-but-its-a-trustworthy-source-168834

Genuine question; if a student used Wikipedia as a source and the other uses a conspiracy website, do y’all put them on the same level?

Wikipedia itself says it a valid source. You can get good info from it, but need to doublecheck as it has a lot of biases and mistakes as well. The same goes for "conspiracy" sites. Of course I'd have the see the site in question before I could compare them.

I mean, when was the last time you saw Wikipedia say that we found an unknown creature that eats Californian people even though it’s actually a dead deer fetus💀
Or that we found a giant spaceship on Mars💀

Generally, using one source isn’t really the best thing to do. But if I have to do it, Wikipedia is the lesser of the evils.
Read information in mainstream media or websites is like riding in a mountainous city where you have to do your best to avoid excessive traffic, just like you have to avoid bias when you search information. But reading on conspiracy or biased far left/far right websites for this sole reason is like going on a dangerous road above a cliff without guardrails just to avoid traffic: it looks like a good solution at first, but it’s actually far from being one.

I've read things that are blatantly wrong on Wikipedia too. Saying there are worse sources is not an excuse for not double checking known questionable source. I'll post if alone if it is info I'm familiar with.

I've also found things on "conspiracy" site that turned out to be true when I did further checking, while the main stream media called it debunked.

The labels "conspiracy" far left/far right s often used to discredit information that the main stream doesn't like. I wouldn't take them at their word, but I'd double check and often need to do so with "trusted" sources while some of the falsely labeled sites do better than main stream about stories that don't fit the popular narrative.

Can you send me the link with the wrong information? Ngl it’s often removed. Try to write that the earth is flat on this place, it’s gonna get removed

You mean do an exhaustive search of constantly changing info? I don't think so.
here's some stuff that was caught in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting#Circular_reporting_on_Wikipedia

You know what? Let’s try an experience. Write a blatant lie on a Wikipedia page. Then 1 week later, tell me if it’s still here.

Wikipedia itself says they are not a reliable source, so try to justify this however you want, it's not a reliable source.

Replying to your previous comment here cause it won’t let me on the latest one.

Did you try my experience?
Wikipedia is a SYNTHESIS of reliable sources, so if you wanna get information, it’s generally a trustworthy place.