[dghughes]

I can't see it being much better I find Wikipedia impartiality lacking it's very US-centric.

For example something like the history of the Alaskan panhandle as seen from the US perspective is totally different when seen from a Canadian perspective.

I never use Wikipedia as a primary source of info even the linked sources I try to use as least three independent sources.

I would certainly like to see "Reliable and trustworthy information" but who do I trust who is reliable?

[ino]

I don't know if you can trust anyone, I mean bias is everywhere. You can pick a side.

For example the Portuguese Wikipedia, shared by Brazil, Portugal (and other countries), with controversial matters many on colonization in the last 500 years, where both sides have academic work to support their contradictory views. Which views prevail?

An example of things being done differently are some Ex-Yugoslav countries (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, etc) whose languages are more similar than Portuguese and Brasilian Portuguese, and each one has its own Wikipedia, with different articles on the same subject depending on their point of view. Lately, I've been seeing more of the Serbocroatian Wikipedia, which I think aims to unite more of the others.

I don't know which way is better, I'm just a user.

Another reason you can't trust anyone, and this is general to the Internet, is that shilling, commercial and political interests aiming to change perception are everywhere. On reddit or facebook, with or without sources. It's the worst aspect of the internet for me these days.