How do you know for fact that the information is "usually false"? Whenver I've used it, it's seemed pretty accurate. Again, I think you should always get a second opinion, especially on school stuff. But what makes it "usually false"? This is implying that most Wiki users are putting up false information, which in turn implies one of two things:
1.) They don't know what they're talking about. If this is the case, then why are they on Wikipedia? Always get your facts straight before putting information up on the internet, which I'll bet most of them do. Not necessarily all of them, but I'd bet a good majority of Wiki users do indeed do that.
OR 2.) They're doing it on purpose. Less likely than the first one, since the only question is: Why would they do that? Maybe as a prank, I suppose, but someone else is bound to come up and fix it.
The information on major subjects usually has a limited viewpoint, and often times are poorly written. Never trust historical documentation that is poorly written. Let me bring up some major examples:
Korean War said:
In August 1950, the President and the Secretary of State easily persuaded the Congress to appropriate $12 billion to pay for the additional Asian military expenses essential to the goals of National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68), the American global containment of communism.
Why are those words italicized? This is a small nitpick here, obviously. After this post I will fix that mistake.
This image ignores an enormous amount of the land territory changes during the span of the war. This only shows five different territory maps. It completely ignores a major part of the war; Americans landing in Incheon and liberating South Korea in a strange, flank-like pattern. It also does not give the impression of how long it took for the United States and Allies to regain the South. It makes everything seem instantaneous. The only part of it that was instantaneous was the initial invasion by North Korea.
Here's a better illustration of how it actually happened:
Note that you DO NOT have permission to use this graphic on Wikipedia, as per request of the author of it. Notice how much more information this has, and how it actually gives an impression on how long and hard the war really was. After all, it is in the Top 10 worst atrocities that ever happened in human history, this war is.
Let us move on to another subject closer to my roots, thus one I know a lot about.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:
Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure both within and outside Iran. He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights.
Second paragraph and you're attacking the man. Leave that for the controversy section. Whatever happened to unbiased reporting? Let's compare this to a better written article.
Barack Obama said:
Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004.
See? That's an unbiased statement, fitting for a second paragraph. It's simple historic fact that is 100% true, as opposed to the name-calling you saw for Ahmadinejad.
The Ahmadinejad article is locked. I cannot fix this mistake. The only people who can are biased to be naturally against him. There's only a few people who are deserving of such negative opening articles: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Kim Il-Sung. For crying out loud, Fidel Castro's opening paragraphs are less biased, and unlike Ahmadinejad, he wasn't democratically elected.
On the article for the State of Palestine, it says in an accurate graphic that South Korea does not fully recognize us, but that they recognize delegates. However, in the list, South Korea is not listed as one who recognizes the delegation. Oh, and the Vatican is listed as not in Europe. The Vatican most definitely is in Europe, who said it isn't in Europe?
Luckily, that article isn't locked, so I'll be fixing this after I make the post.
I could go on all day if I have to.