I actually realize that nowadays sources for information such as Wikipedia can't be trusted anymore. How about you? GO ON AND DISCUSS!

I actually realize that nowadays sources for information such as Wikipedia can't be trusted anymore. How about you? GO ON AND DISCUSS!
#teamdivergent
Depends how you define trustworthy and whether your definition extends beyond encyclopaedic definitions. Wikipedia is not a website to be taken at face value, I agree, but I don't think that it should be completely dismissed as a source of reliable information. tbh it's heavily moderated so the edits that are unreliable don't tend to slip through the cracks and for the most part the information on many pages is accurate. Obviously nobody should use it as a "trustworthy" reference in any academic work but that does not mean that information is completely falsified. Exploring citations on articles is key.
Depends on the sources. Wikipedia isn't accurate but it's not inaccurate either. It's edited by anyone, both people in the know and those who, for some reason, are purposely falsifying information. Wikipedia is one of those sites which is its own worst enemy.
The internet isn't to be untrusted nor trusted. It really depends on the sources. Academically, you should be using raw sources (in law you have primary sources e.g. statute and cases, and secondary sources e.g. journals, blogs, news/media). These can come from University libraries, public libraries, private companies who handled the data, official websites relating to the area you're studying. Wikipedia is a secondary source, perhaps so far as a tertiary source which highlights a rough idea, but then you have to challenge what it says with the primary sources or secondary sources. I sometimes use it to gain a basic idea, then use a blog/news article (or the other way round) then find the raw source of information to help solidify the information.
LEFT
FOM & FOW
If you need me, feel free to PM me here for contact details.