This is a cool healing mechanism built into the nature of wikipedia; popular, big topics get far more exposure and tend to be more accurate over time. Combined with the visiblity from metadata on edits, the contention and disagreement is far more visible than say, deciding if we should trust the new book on climate change that's on the front page right now.
General rule of thumb is the deeper and more topical you go on wikipedia, the more alert your BS detector needs to be. It's not perfect, but it's once of the best sources we have today.
> General rule of thumb is the deeper and more topical you go on wikipedia, the more alert your BS detector needs to be.
My perception is that the more popular and controversial topics are more likely to attract editors, but also BS. The Mohammad Ali page may attract plenty of BS, intentional or unwitting (lots of people have ideas about Ali); the page on the 1928 Olympic boxing champion probably doesn't attract much of either.
> the more alert your BS detector needs to be
Also, I think the "BS detector" is the most powerful mechanism for spreading mis- and disinformation. People who think they have one are the most prone to being fooled, and I think research shows that. Beyond obvious flaws, unless you already know the correct and complete information (omissions can be just as BS as outright errors), you won't be able to spot errors or omissions.
Think of it this way: Using your BS detector, could you edit your own writing to fool someone else? I think I could easily pass most people's 'BS detectors'. Imagine what someone paid to write BS can do - or just look at the research about massive troll farms and disinformation campaigns.
Finally, the fact is that BS spreads at a magnitude unimagined in human history. Evidently, the BS detectors aren't helping. And if you think you are smarter than everyone else, you are the most vulnerable (also demonstrated by research).
> it's once of the best sources we have today.
IMHO Encyclopedia Britannica is always better where it has coverage (i.e., because I can trust it), as is Google Scholar, authoritative websites by experts, and better journalism. If I want to know about the deer tick, I use a website such as Tree of Life (tolweb.org).
General rule of thumb is the deeper and more topical you go on wikipedia, the more alert your BS detector needs to be. It's not perfect, but it's once of the best sources we have today.