Wikipedia does really well with "non-controversial" subjects, things that comprise the bulk of the information in it. It fares less with topical / controversial subjects. But then these wouldn't be in an encyclopedia, would they?

They are experts on fake penises, how you become the oracle of such things is a mystery. The authenticity of their own appendage is at this time unknown.

(Although there are mutterings of scale model).

Are they faking their expertise with penises? Or are they experts on the subject of fake penises?

Meanwhile, under all this (dirty) surface froth, Wikipedia continues to provide vast amounts of solid, fairly reliable entry-level information on a host of worthwhile subjects.

Who cares about all these politicians, megastars, sportspeople, celebs, and other thrid-rate nonentities? Try Wikipedia's featured article today on William Gibson; or its article on lambda calculus; or even look up a little-known historical figure such as Dionysius Exiguus. (Go on, try it, you might learn something).

Wikipedia may not be quite as reliable as Britannica, for instance (although at least its name is not deliberately misleading). OTOH it has at least 100 times more useful information, simply by being so much bigger and more comprehensive.