It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
Wikipedia is a tool that can be useful for your research as long as you understand how to use it and its limitations.
It is an encyclopedia, which is a reference source, and is meant to provide you with background information so that you can move on and find more in-depth information (usually in articles or books). You should not be citing encyclopedias in your papers, but rather getting your information from articles, books, and other sources with in-depth information.
It’s edited by a community that is not diverse (over 90% male and primarily from North America) and so key perspectives may be missing. See this article: Boboltz, S. (2017, December 6). Editors are trying to fix Wikipedia’s gender and racial bias problem. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-gender-racial-bias_n_7054550
It’s edited by a community and so relevant information or key sources may be missing or incorrect.
For example, the Wikipedia page on witch hunts, as of January 24, 2020, presented the topic as if it were a gender neutral issue, without mention of sexism. In contrast, the entry from the Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice found in the UCC Library's Credo Reference database, does discuss this as a central aspect of this issue (which it is). This is an example of an important aspect of a topic being omitted, without which, the issue really can't be understood.
Their mission states: "We nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding."
"Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communication and media at Merrimack College, has made a list of more than a hundred problematic news sites, along with tips for sorting the truthful from the troublesome."
Get your news from credible journalistic sources instead of social media. Any sources that you do see on social media, ignore the comments and headlines -- click through and read the source itself and any sources it cites.
Americans are increasingly turning to social media for political information. However, given that the average social media user only clicks through on a small fraction of the political content available, the brief article previews that appear in the News Feed likely serve as shortcuts to political information. Yet, in addition to sharing political news, social media also allow users to make their own comments on news posts, comments which may challenge or distort the information contained in the articles. In this paper, we first analyze how social media posts on Twitter and Facebook differ from the actual content of their linked news articles, finding that social media comments regularly misrepresent the facts reported in the news. We then use a survey experiment to test the consequences of these information discrepancies. Specifically, we randomly assign individuals to read a full news article, a news article preview post (as seen on Facebook), or a news article preview with misinformative social commentary attached. We find that individuals in the social commentary conditions are more misinformed about the featured topic, tending to report the factually-incorrect information relayed in the comments rather than the factually-correct information embedded within the article preview.