Wikipedia gets something of a bad rap. It's user-created and user-edited, and pretty much anyone can just go on there and make a change to any article. So some think this means it's generally unreliable.
But in fact the most popular articles are generally very reliable. This is because of a number of reasons. Firstly there's an extensive set of policies in place to ensure the content meets a certain level. You can't simply write what you believe to be true, it actually needs to be backed up with references from reliable sources. Secondly there are "many eyes" looking over most articles, and so inaccuracies or biases are quickly spotted and removed.
But it's far from perfect. Especially in the more fringe topics there's frequently not enough interest to actually get enough eyes on the page for the system to work. So things often end up with a rather peculiar bias, based on whoever decided to adopt a particular page.
A bunch of people trying to improve this is the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia movement, run by Susan Gerbic.
Somewhat similarly there's a project with Wikipedia itself, the WikiProject Skepticism,
But in fact the most popular articles are generally very reliable. This is because of a number of reasons. Firstly there's an extensive set of policies in place to ensure the content meets a certain level. You can't simply write what you believe to be true, it actually needs to be backed up with references from reliable sources. Secondly there are "many eyes" looking over most articles, and so inaccuracies or biases are quickly spotted and removed.
But it's far from perfect. Especially in the more fringe topics there's frequently not enough interest to actually get enough eyes on the page for the system to work. So things often end up with a rather peculiar bias, based on whoever decided to adopt a particular page.
A bunch of people trying to improve this is the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia movement, run by Susan Gerbic.
Besides simply fixing things that are wrong, the GSW folk also try to improve the quality of pages about skepticism, so they edit pages about people like Phil Plait, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content of Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages. Why? Because evidence is cool. We train – We mentor – Join us.
Somewhat similarly there's a project with Wikipedia itself, the WikiProject Skepticism,
If you are interested in debunking, you might consider spending a bit more time helping to fix Wikipedia, and less simply arguing with believers in bunk. There's a magnifying effect from Wikipedia. If you edit something there, then it's going to be seen by vastly more people than something buried on the fifth page of a rambling thread.WikiProject Skepticism is a WikiProject dedicated to creating, improving, and monitoring articles related to Scientific skepticism, including articles about claims related to science and philosophy which are contrary to the current body of scientific evidence, or which involve the paranormal. The project ensures that these articles are written from a neutral point of view, and do not put forward invalid claims as truth.