I look up a lot of stuff on Wikipedia. Political matters, though, justify finding other sources:
Sometimes zealots become obnoxious enough that they lose privileges or are even blocked — although it’s nearly impossible to block someone who uses a different IP address. But an administrator named William Connolley eventually was removed as an administrator because of abusive edits to climate change pages, and congressional staffers have been blocked for politically-motivated (and libelous) edits to opponent’s pages — not to mention one who is going to prison for doxing members of Congress on Wikipedia.
This is a real, and essential, problem with the Wikipedia model: it can’t both be open to general editing and a reliable source on controversial topics. Wikipedia tries to combat this with various policies, including maintaining a neutral point of view, and a stated policy that it’s “not a newspaper.” But the supply of zealots is unlimited.
So, the conclusion is not to trust Wikipedia on any controversial topic, and trust-but-verify on any topic.
I am a registered editor at Wikipedia. My ISP tosses me a new IP address every few weeks; one of them is actually blocked by Wikipedia, though not for anything I did. (The last edit I did was to this page.)
And you’d be surprised, or maybe you wouldn’t, at the topics that have been locked by administrators.