Although Wikipedia is a good place to start a research project, it cannot be trusted all of the time. Readers cannot be sure who wrote Wikipedia articles, and if there is no bibliography, the information might be wrong. Wikipedia is an important tool, but it is limited by the anonymity of its authors.
No matter what some people say, Wikipedia is at least a good start to get information on a topic. It is not 100% reliable and I wouldn't quote from there on a paper, but I would go there to get the basic idea and then do further research on those ideas.
Wikipedia is not unreliable because of bias. Wikipedia is the one thing on the Internet that deals in nothing but the facts. I think that Wikipedia is a great source to obtain information from and do not think that any of the information there is tainted because of bias information.
Wikipedia is a fine source of information. However, as with any source, it must be checked especially if the subject or person being investigated is an important one. No source should be taken without investigation, but this one is a great place to start when you are looking for basic information.
I do not believe that Wikipedia is inherently unreliable because of bias. I think the major problem with Wikipedia is people posting non-factual information or adding information that can not be back up with references. I believe the ability to edit, by anyone, has a way of eliminating bias in some ways.