So, I'm gonna stir the pot a bit... don't be too harsh...

[Igel]

18. The trouble with Wiki isn't that it spouts false information on a regular basis.

Some things slip through but often enough they get caught if they're important enough to be noticed. (Tree octopus or the Goa war notwithstanding.)

The problem with Wiki is that on some topics info is left out entirely and that skews the takeaway. I remember reading up on a topic (and exploring some of the links) in Wiki. Then summer '20 I went back and the article was different--it had been expurgated of anything that prevented one particular view from being presented without challenge or doubt, and claims were cited (with references) but the former discussion of the claims as being first made 30 years after the fact, being implausible and only from one source (each) gave the impression that the unlikely claims were verified fact.

Some topics in Wiki are excellent--but they tend to be harshly scientific where the culture is that your argument must take into account other arguments and try to ID unresolved issues with your own. (Because if you don't somebody else will revel in un-deluding you.) Otherwise, the more political/controversial the topic the more skeptical you need to be and the more you need to know before you make a judgment about what the Wiki says.

AI both hallucinates and omits stuff. If you don't already know more than the Chatbutt exudes, you're quite possibly going to know wrong stuff that you'll have to unlearn before you can become more education.