Pardon me your prejudices are showing. In most things Wikipedia is quite reliable and compares favorably with other resources such as Britannica. That's been old news since 2005 when Nature did their study, and it's been confirmed by a number of other studies since then. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me

(http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=how+reliable+is+wikipedia) (and yeah the top hit is wikipedia itsef, but hey, feel free to ignore the article content and just wade into the 100 linked references and do the research yourself if you don't trust wikipedia to host a non-biased article on its own accuracy)

Yes there's been problems, particularly in areas where there's incentives for people to provide false info, such as charged issues like politics, religion, or biographical information on prominent figures in such areas. But in matters of science Wikipedia has a good track record, and unlike other sources that may require a subscription, it's available for all and hence makes a good reference.

So unless you feel the actual content at the linked source (along with it's 12 linked references) is for some reason WRONG, don't dismiss it just because it's wikipedia.