You could always use Conservapedia
[conservapedia.com]

Wikipedia is an aggregator of information. Everything in it is supposed to originate from some place else. You should always cite original sources. I don't understand this criticism of Wikipedia. There are some academics that think they are the ordained gatekeepers of information. Screw them. I've heard of companies that horde research, and to access it, you have to pay a lot of money for it. Screw that. Information that has already been paid for, especially from public funds, should be freely available. We should have a system to make this so. Computers and the Internet has made it much cheaper to disseminate information. Where ever possible, information should be available to everyone, as cheaply as possible. We don't need gatekeepers.

And we don't need liars, like Conservapedia.

Confirmation from other sources is usually best. I was listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson yesterday in an older YouTube video talking about how Wikipedia listed him as Atheist, and he denied it and said he is Agnostic. He said that he has never given up what he was before in any of his speeches or lectures or appearances on any shows, but people interpreted what he said apparently as him being an Atheist.

I always suggest to my students to not use wikipedia as a cited source - BUT i do tell them to use it to search the general idea or concept - and then to scroll to the bottom and see what sources the article cites as there are generally hyperlinks to those. They are worth it as a starting point.

Could have a one sided source like the one in the link describes, where all views are neatly cleaned to be in line.
[en].wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

If I recall correctly Lisa Randall was the first person outside of CERN who was informed that the Higgs Boson had been confirmed. I suppose thou aren't fond of its alternate name either.

Wikipedia has come a long way in terms of reliability in the last decade or so. Content is no longer open for editing by any user. There are still mistakes, but the site has become a lot more reliable and its sources are actually credible.

One morning I was joking with someone about Asphalta, goddess of parking spaces. I told the person that he should look it up on Wiki when he got to work as she was real in the Pagan religion. I quickly wrote a summary about her and it stayed up on Wiki for almost the whole day until someone got smart!

It's not perfect but it's the best thing we have at the moment. It would be helpful if scientific papers weren't hidden behind paywalls.

There was a big scandal about a right wing campaign to change Wikipedia recently. American politicians were suddenly angels and all traces of corruption removed.

Unlike the Encyclopedia Britanica or the like, Wikipedia is not written by experts but represents the consensus opinion of non-experts.

There have been studies done over the years, although many of them are older and covered Wikipedia when it was pretty new, and general reliability in Wiki articles is about the same as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
I'm an academic librarian and I touch on Wikipedia when I give bibliographic instruction to students. I advise them that Wikipedia is a RESOURCE but should never be used as a SOURCE. Good Wiki articles are going to have their own references that can be followed for potential source material.
With the tracking that many editors of Wikipedia use, I think the more scholarly stuff is going to be pretty accurate since changes are going to be monitored and reviewed fairly quickly. The more pop cultural/ non-academic type stuff might be more suspect since it might not be as closely watched.
I use Wikipedia for subjects I don't know much about, but if it's an important topic that I need strong, solid information, I'm gonna find a source that backs up whatever Wikipedia might say.

[zmescience.com]wikipedia-25092014/
[livescience.com]wikipedia.html
[washingtonpost.com]wikipedia-trustworthy-when-it-comes-to-science/2015/08/24/74c71904-4755-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0477874dbf95

There's a lot of very good science content on Wikipedia, take a look at the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project for example, a fantastic group run by a woman called Susan Gerbic whose aim is to improve skeptical content on there.

More accurate than Facebook and trump. andaand amazing for everything that is in

Except that I once tried to add information about the post war life of a magician, Jasper Maskelyn, the third in a line of famous magicians (His grandfather invented the magic rings - and the toilet door mechanism!)
I was then asked to quote sources, and replied that it was personal knowledge, because I knew him well. My mother had been his main stage assistant - and I even sent a showing them setting off on an overland tour from Kenya to South Africa and back in 1952. (I was 11 at the time, but I knew Jasper until I left Kenya in 1987)
It was not enough evidence, and my additions to his biography were removed. What do I have to? Write a book about him, then quote myself as the authoritative source?