3 ms·

You can't trust it any more or less than any other source. The circumcision (a euphemism for male genital mutilation) page for example is run and moderated by

• arp242 5y ago
  It's not Wikipedia's job to be pro or against anything. The topic of circumcision is a topic of debate in the US, which Wikipedia records, and arguments from both proponents and opponents have a place in it. Does this mean that Wikipedia is, in a way, kind of a "bad" resource? Absolutely. My personal opinion is that circumcision is indefensible, and we can quickly agree on this. But this kind of resource has value too; what if I want to educate myself on the argument that pro-circumcision people use? There's Wikipedia for that! I was raised very secular; up to my early 20s I didn't really have an opinion on religion in general because I was simply never really exposed to it; I knew it existed of course, but outside of that: idunnoknow. After I had some Jehovah's Witnesses at my door I decided to educate myself a bit more about this and looked up, among other things, arguments in favour of God's existence on Wikipedia. I thought they were ridiculous and didn't even hold up to the most basic of critical thinking; I couldn't believe this nonsense was really the best they could come up with. I've been atheist ever since. However, this doesn't mean that these arguments – ridiculous as I might think they are – don't have a place on Wikipedia, and shouldn't be described there.