It's obviously folly to rely on the text of Wikipedia entries, which, aside from being liable to contain any arbitrary content at any time that you happen to read them, are hotbeds of plagiarism. But it's an excellent source of references and a convenient repository of public domain or CC images. Also, articles on technical subjects tend to be useful, aside from the plagiarism problem.
Comments
It's obviously folly to rely on the text of Wikipedia entries, which, aside from being liable to contain any arbitrary content at any time that you happen to read them, are hotbeds of plagiarism. But it's an excellent source of references and a convenient repository of public domain or CC images. Also, articles on technical subjects tend to be useful, aside from the plagiarism problem.
Except when they contain serious errors and omissions, and which articles are those? Nobody knows, except someone already expert in that area.
For example, I would have no idea there were problems in these mathematics articles:
http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/10/20/elementary-mathematics-...