Many people will try to argue it is a very good source, but I agree with you that it will never be good because of its open-to-edit nature. Anyone can edit it and so how do we know something must be authoritatively true - it does not necessarily follow that just because a majority of people believe X is true means X is really true.
In addition, there is no consistency between one article in one language to another unless if that one is a translated version of that article from anotehr language. In the article on World War II, for example, you will see the English version talk a lot about Nazis and Hitler, while the Chinese version will emphasise Japan, and the Japanese version blasts the US for Lend-Lease and setting up the Flying Tigers to aid China before Pearl Harbour and effectively breaching the US neutrality stance of that time.
The article on the Japanese national anthem in Chinese blasts it as extremely militaristic while you won't see anything like such comments in the English version as the English-speaking nations don't regard it as such.
There are some who think it is our job to correct this. No, people have lives... Liars indict themselves, and it is not our job to actively refute misinformation as fast as it can be produced.
A source that defames itself should be ignored, not moved to a "debate" section or voted upon by an army of politcally driven teenagers.