My personal experience with Wikipedia it that it's sort of a "'tweener" ... it lies somewhere between a Webster's and an encyclopedia, though, in both cases, more up to date ... some articles are brief and concise, leading you in the direction of more comprehensive information while others are more in-depth and informative in their own right. You can glean as much or as little as you may have need for ... a brief definition, if you will, or more complete information. But both types will take you a step beyond to other sources ... which is the norm for any proper research anyway: not relying on any one source of information ...

And as has been pointed out by others, any misleading or outright totally misinformative postings are generally corrected immediately by either members of Wikipedia "staff" or by other members of the community at large ...

Considering the concept of and community maintenance of Wikipedia, it is a wondrous thing that all of us, regardless of social status or level of education, can use to further our knowledge and understanding of just about any subject we should choose ...

As to the dihydrogen monoxide thing ... well, it's all water under the bridge ... 'nuff said about it ...