Wikipedia is not a reliable source definitely in the case that its articles can't reference its other articles, but also now generally in the academic world. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) mentioned a study describing Wikipedia tends to be equally as accurate as, or more accurate than, top encylopaedias... but Wikipedia also has articles altered by vandalism/blanking, people pushing non-neutral viewpoints (or being deluded they are neutral, or some version of ‘neutral’ seen more out-of-date) and a large degree of conformity/groupthink/bureaucracy, and an overall Wikipedia viewpoint, because of editor majority demographics, administrators' popular sociopolitics, deletionism/etc. (and on the other hand, creation of too many irrelevant popular culture articles, often named historical terms until fixed, changed back, explained, fixed), scandals & the cabal, and because 2/3 to 95% of humans are irrational, mostly sophists (many trolls). Wikipedia used to seem helpful for writing various papers but now has been seen as a poor (usually banned) source for any level academic papers on subjects such as humanities & social science, and probably all science (though may be okay place to find sources cited, and check, but not as good a library, best with a professional reference librarian of higher academic degree).
The wiki concept & Mediawiki software seem to be Wikipedia's best things, rather than some of the material, which you may find better elsewhere like other literature including books and from experts/schools, special topic wikis.
Even though this user is an antitheist, they will ignore your religion because it's an irrelevant factor, instead your personality, because it actually matters.
