Isn't Wikipedia a (secondary) media source, effectively?

[srid]

Wikipedia is about what the sources say, and not about the truth. The sources are generally media sources, if not secondary sources (which could equally be biased).

Can Wikipedia be trusted? Obviously the answer is no. My advice is for readers to critically examine the sources used in Wikipedia, and not blindly take the paraphrasing of the Wikipedia editors. This is especially important for political and other controversial topics on Wikipedia.

Some descriptions about how to effectively use Wikipedia would be nice in this guide. I don't have time to write, but I can offer my input in a discussion.

[nemild]

Thanks! Let's wait for someone to contribute detailed knowledge on this.

The right contribution would walk through specific forms of bias, include examples, and then provide suggestions.

[srid]

It would be a good idea to keep this issue open meanwhile, so that it attracts the attention of such people into contributing.

[srid]

Wikipedia article quality varies based on political diversity of the editor team:

we found that higher team political polarization was strongly associated with higher page quality, far exceeding the quality of similarly sized biased, neutral, or moderate editor teams. This was especially true for political articles, but also those on social issues and science.

https://hbr.org/2019/07/are-politically-diverse-teams-more-effective