johnbt said:
Nobody asked anyone to believe that entry. I asked him to read it and return with any remaining questions. The great thing is that if he did return with any questions that resulted in someone identifying missing or incorrect information in that Wikipedia entry ANYONE HERE could go ahead and fix it. Then, as an example, that entry would be partially written by you. Would that give you more confidence in it?
In other words, if Wikipedia is wrong then fix it yourself, and if it isn't then don't complain.
All that being said, the vast majority of Wikipedia entries are factually accurate and a fantastic source of information on all manner of topics. For instance, if you are considering buying a Mosin Nagant you can find out all sorts of basic information about them directly from Wikipedia, then you could also find out about the ammo it uses as well, including basic ballistics information. No need to bother people on forums like these for basic factual information, you can focus on opinion or more detailed facts instead.
These days if you discount Wikipedia as a useful and valid information source you are only making things harder on yourself. Don't get me wrong, if you are writing a formal paper you can't use Wikipedia as a primary source, but you can use it to find primary sources.
The above conversation about pre-set hammers proves my point exactly by the way. Without that entry nobody here would have mentioned all the minor sub-actions possible like that one and would have left the OP less informed than he could be. That one link, if read, provides a ton more information than he would otherwise ever have gotten here.