Wikipedia is one of the last, best sources of information on the Internet that isn’t biased, corporate-sponsored bullsh*t.

Instead it’s bullshit built upon elaborate bureaucracy which has it’s own layers of issues depending on exactly what topic/field we’re talking about.

The biggest and most obvious flaw being that it’s more or less explicitly designed to fail spectacularly as regards any topic that the media doesn’t want to talk about (for example, anything that might make the media look bad) because there’s going to be an intentional lack of “reliable sources” on those topics.

The definition of a “reliable source” is another - there’s a fair bit of jockeying on that which functionally biases WP. Especially when you start looking at what disqualified a given source from being “reliable” and start to notice that the bar seems to be set very unevenly depending on the particular source and how well liked it is by certain power-editors.

It’s good enough for anything that’s not politically contentious to anyone, but I would never use it for anything other than a vague overview and starting point for other sources to dig into.