I would use Wikipedia for "old" stories which can align with other forms of info, like Britannica and my favorite Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( edited by many, but not by all ). Wikipedia is its own problem, because there are "editors" who can override, and because political activists work so diligently to manipulate pages. So all the "new" stuff should be suspect.
I'll add a personal anecdote. A certain page addition I "wiki'd" in Wikipedia became the subject of three or four of those "editors" years ago, and their internal discussions on which I stumbled was most interesting. Not scholarly nor factual; pure politics.
Wikipedia can be used with caution, and much on it is accurate -- and sometimes accurate enough. But one should always "look behind the curtain" to see who's manipulating the levers. Skepticism is much is warranted.
Wikipedia is very biased in the sources it uses and the way it uses them.
If they like a source they will accept every word from it without question.
If they do not like a source they will ignore it (most likely) or attack or deconstruct it.
Think of them as like the drunk braggart at the bar.
The braggart is probably lying about a lot of things—but you have to do all the digging to separate fact from fiction.