meh, this "boohoo wikipedia sucks and there's only lies in there" is ridiculous unsupported populism. It has vast editorial "staff" (talk pages are very useful when determining article's beliavabilty btw) and clear mistakes are quickly dealt with. Most trustworthy articles have HUGE list of references too, often to books in cases like history.
Really, you're not supposed to be making some big scientific research based on wikipedia but as quick place to check out it is best one there is. And as long as there's no controversy present on talk page and there's no "REFERENCES NEEDED" after every other sentence it is quite trustworthy.
I remember some test where (english) wikipedia and some book were compared. They had about same number ofm istakes.