I have to agree on terribleness of wikipedia. The approach in Wikipedia is as such: if you can cite that 2 * 2 = 5 , then you can write about it, but it is a mortal sin against the wikipedia to derive the 2 * 2 = 4 from first principles . That's because wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the wikipedia's process only rearranges knowledge while introducing biases and errors; that's by design. The most common bias is to represent both sides equally when they shouldn't be, the second most common bias is the side with the most people editing wikipedia winning while screaming lalala original research can not hear you, when it comes to basic reasoning.

For 2 * 2 , it does generally work and the rules would be glossed over, for anything more complicated, well the wikipedia equates any logic with any nonsense.

Then, a great deal of websites regurgitate stuff from wikipedia, often making it very difficult or impossible to find any actual information.

That being said, the wikipedia is a pretty good online link directory. Just don't rely on the stuff written on the wikipedia, and don't rely on articles that were repeating the 'citation needed' section, and then were added as the needed citation. And be aware that the selection of links can be very biased.