is Wikipedia reliable??

Wikipedia is policed. You cannot put anything in the main "Read" section unless it's been published somewhere else by someone other than yourself, so there's some validation there. There is a Talk section where the Read section can be discussed. People with knowledge can edit many of the entries. I have seen unreliable entries. Nyere's stranglehold on Ugandan politics up to the time he finally succeeded in engineering Obote's return to power and brutality is, for instance, ignored. I haven't tried to correct that, but I have corrected and expanded other entries, on Horace and Schumann, for instance, something that would not have been possible with paper encyclopedias. Even paper encyclopedias aren't infallible. The 19th Century Enyclopedia Britannica articles on the Bible, written by Professor William Robertson Smith, were, basically, fairy stories, and I'm not prepared to spend money on finding out whether the position has improved. Wikipedia is a good first point of call, but then internet search the subject to check up.

For things I've looked up, Wikipedia is pretty reliable. I haven't come across anything so far when it comes to people trolling an article./

I love looking up subjects on Wikipedia also. I would think the information found there would be reliable. I have often checked on other sites and found the information from Wikipedia was reliable. Its been around for quite afew years too. I do love research.

Majority of the articles in Wikipedia are indeed factual. I think one major reason why companies and schools don't encourage the use of this is that most of the contents without citations and as such a bit difficult to, well, validate. Formal presentations do require authentic and validated information. I use Wiki as my primary source when I need to look up something, but I make sure to cross-check this with other cited sources if and when I'll use the data in a formally.