[leokennis]

It’s an encyclopedia. For facts, it can by definition only touch the surface. For subjective debates and subjects (like politics) it can by definition only give a high level overview of the different points of view.

Saying it’s “extremely flawed” is like saying Superman is weak because he’s vulnerable to Kryptonite.

[antibuddy]

You would be right, if Wikipedia would not cover the opinions/subjective topics as well. Nowadays it is often used as a column for some higher-up contributors/journalists.

It is still valuable for the scientific topics and I would not call that superficial at all, but you need to be very critical of anything that goes further than that. And actually even for the scientific topics you need to be aware if PR is involved with the article, because then you have to take anything with a grain of salt as well.