I use Wikipedia a lot, and now and then they ask me for money. Now and then I give them money.
"What?" you say. "You fool! It's a mess, that thing, riddled with inaccuracies, biased, completely unreliable."
Well, so am I, so it's a good fit.
Actually, it's quite useful for things that are not controversial. You might ask — indeed, you might beg to know — which things are not controversial these days. You tell someone you stubbed your toe on a rock, and they might say, "Really? Sure it wasn't a rock crystal? Did you check? Are you a quartz-denier?"
So what's safe and dependable on Wikipedia? Entries on "quartz," for example. Entries on "people hit in the head by a rock who completely deserved it" might be scant, but useful. The history pages are good, because there are hordes of anal-retentive history enthusiasts who hover over them, correcting errors, footnoting controversies and so on. We all can agree that William the Conqueror existed, and Wikipedia has an exhaustive entry with many fascinating details. This one I found remarkable:
"William's reign has caused historical controversy since before his death. William of Poitiers wrote glowingly of William's reign and its benefits, but the obituary notice for William in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle condemns William in harsh terms."
It sounds like a newspaper, doesn't it? In the 12th century. Wonder how that worked.
"Dear, has the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle come yet?"