How much do you trust Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is often misunderstood. People sometimes snarkily say it's quantum information, in a superposition of right and wrong. However, the problem with truth is that it's very complicated and a lot of it is based on your perspective if it isn't outright subjective. Different theoretical perspectives or different stakeholder positions can markedly change how something is characterized.

Traditional encyclopedias almost always have a narrow view of the perspectives, one that is traditional and is therefore all too often dominated by the most powerful perspective. Class, race, gender, sexual orientation, national, and professional biases can easily sneak in. It's one voice, or a voice of a few editors.

Wikipedia opens up the process to a wide variety of voices. It still prioritizes expertise and actual sources: Unsourced statements will be removed. The truths on Wikipedia are less certain, but that is actually to Wikipedia's advantage.

Anyone who does scholarly work knows that you can never rely on one source, theoretical perspective, or methodology. Wikipedia is effectively a snapshot at any given moment of the disputes on the topic, which should be used to guide further research. Wikipedia is not a replacement for a traditional edited encyclopedia; it is something else entirely. It is a different kind of source, with its own merits and deficits. Anyone with good research skills knows to use Wikipedia with a grain of salt, as they would any other source.

I believe that, with its rules and guidelines, any Wikipedia article is bound to improve over time. But it can take a while until an article is properly written.

There are many articles which aren't properly sourced. This can be a problem if those involved in the creation and modification of the unsourced material try to implement their own opinion in the article. Another issue; if the source isn't found on internet but in a book, it is harder to verify. And it's also more difficult, if you own the book and use it as a source, to properly validate its authenticity. But since we're still in the early stage of internet, we can expect this problem to be less important as the years go by.We'll most likely see every single book ending up on the web at some point or another.

The huge problem is that there are articles which require very specific knowledge. Sometimes, only an expert can truly give the real facts, and most people on Wikipedia are just ordinary folks. This can lead to having an expert taking almost entire control of an article because others simply can't match his knowledge - which can lead to biased articles. I had such an experience with the Khan dynasty articles. Being one of the few users having an extensive knowledge of Genghis Khan's numerous followers and their own individual exploits, I ended up writing articles which have yet to be verified or modified simply because no one on Wikipedia appears to know as much as me on the subject.

In the long term, though, I can't really see how Wikipedia would see a decline in its quality unless it changes the way it currently operates. It can only grow and get better. So, yes, I trust Wikipedia on most occasions, but it's still good to check your facts elsewhere if you ever encounter a visibly weaker article. Usually, the more sources an article has, the more it will be accurate.

I compete in forensics, or competitive speech and debate. I'm in the Extemporaneous category, which includes limited time to make a logical "persuasive" speech about a topic, typically political.

As such, I need to accurately cite sources regularly, and although Wikipedia can be effective, it's pretty much a habit to not use it as a source.