Eh, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Many people treat Wikipedia as credible for most topics, but wherever there's a controversy (especially a political one),

Eh, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Many people treat Wikipedia as credible for most topics, but wherever there's a controversy (especially a political one), at least one side of it will probably be skeptical of Wikipedia's coverage of said controversy. I'm also not a fan of using Wikipedia's criteria for valid sources on social media sites becuase it's not really an accurate measure. It's very much biased in favour of well resourced outlets at the expense of niche or freelance ones, despite what others in the field consider credible. For example, if you're looking for information about the next Pokemon game, what do you consider a reliable source? Something like Serebii.net, or something like Kotaku? In the gaming field and media, the former is more reliable since they've built up a reputation in their field as an accurate source for information, whereas the latter isn't terrible, but is mostly reposted stories with less vigorous fact checking none the less. On Wikipedia however, they think the latter is more accurate, since it uses paid writers with a more professional layout and real name identification front and centre, which distorts the coverage a bit. I basically commented a bit more about this in my article here: https://artplusmarketing.com/trust-is-what-makes-a-source-reliable-987b7cb4984 https://artplusmarketing.com/trust-is-what-makes-a-source-re...