I think it is accurate, or it tells you it is inaccurate.

As any one can edit the articles, there is a good chance that the information provided is not accurate.

There is no way to determine the chances of the information being inaccurate simply because it is user provided.

This Article will tell you :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability ofWikipedia

For the most part, I would say that Wikipedia is fairly accurate since they require sources to be cited. If sources aren't cited they alert you by twlling you that this information may not be accurate. That's why a multitude of sources are found at the bottom of the web page.

Wikipedia is generally accurate- partially for the same reason that it is unreliable as a source.

It can be edited by anyone- and the equivalent of vandalism can and does happen- and often[citation needed]. However, there is a large group of people who monitor changelogs and check into them, who are generally quick to revert overt cases of vandalism. Some persist a bit longer when the edit is subtle, but due to the differential highlighting used in the change log these can generally be spotted in fairly short order themselves[citation needed]. Even so, the overwhelming number of wikipedia articles as compared to the numbers of 'vandals' means that any given (properly cited) article is far more likely to be accurate than not[citation needed].

This same ability to be edited by anyone is one of the biggest boons to wikipedias accuracy; new information can (and often is) added nearly as soon as it becomes available[citation needed]. And herein lies the second problem of using it as a source- if your sources are checked by anyone, and the articles been updated since, your paraphrasing may not match up with what's on the page- much less any quotes you used.

I generally use wikipedia as a springboard of sorts; as was noted in another argument earlier, most are heavily sourced; while not comprehensive, a wikipedia article on a general subject will have source links to numerous more detailed references, covering a large number of subtopics within the subject in question[citation needed].

It's pretty fucking accurate.

@thousandin1

you are right to say the statement that citations are needed is used to clarify there might be a lack of sources, however those remarks are also edited by people.

I would argue that on the popular topics or the less visited topics it might be accurate, however on the controversial topics it might not be as accurate and reliable as we tend to believe

In my experience, it is accurate. I have experienced no problems with their accuracy.